Fascist in modern politics

hitler and mussolini

“Some opponents have likened Donald J. Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini; supporters call that a smear tactic. Credit Associated Press”

The one essay I did at university from which I learned the most and have often thought about was titled, “Fascist Criticisms of Liberalism”. And what I learned was that fascism was a form of totalitarian ideology that was essentially tied to an authoritarian leader-principle and whose economic principles were basically socialist. Central planning was at the heart of its economic methodology. It was the nation that counted and not the individual. Hitler alone among the pre-War fascists, married the ideology to racism, but none of this was found in the ideologies of Mussolini, Franco or Salazar. You can tell a fascist state by its use of police power to suppress dissent. Fascism remains alive today as a living reality – see Cuba and Castro – but the word itself has transmogrified into a term of abuse used by socialists to criticise everyone else. The reality, however, is that fascism is a Soviet-type Marxist socialism without its international dimension. Any ideology can be at its centre as long as it claims to be absolute truth from which no deviations are permitted.

The picture and text is from The New York Times in an article titled, Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism. Here’s the definition they use:

Fascism, generally defined as a governmental system that asserts complete power and emphasizes aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Let’s see which of the following would characterise the US if Donald Trump were elected:

  • the imposition of an ideology to which every member of the community must subscribe
  • a police state in which opponents of the regime are in peril of their lives and are often imprisoned
  • a centrally planned economy
  • suppression of dissent
  • a state run media

Not one of these is even remotely possible if Donald Trump were elected president. The article is worth a read since it represents just how far the modern media has fallen, how nothing you find there can be trusted. The plain reality is that they cannot criticise Trump on the specifics of what he has in mind since even to state Trump’s aims would only add to his support. So it is just ignorant name calling by people who have no idea what they are talking about but manage to have their views printed in what was once one of the prestige newspapers of the world.

Calling Trump a fascist is ignorance attempting to deceive the willingly ignorant. If they don’t know that calling Trump a fascist is slander without content then why would you read such a newspaper ever again, other than to remind you of what great dangers our civilisation must now face in dealing with the actual fascists in our midst.

This entry was posted in American politics, Philosophy, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

244 Responses to Fascist in modern politics

  1. A Lurker

    Calling Trump a fascist is ignorance attempting to deceive the willingly ignorant. If they don’t know that calling Trump a fascist is slander without content then why would you read such a newspaper ever again, other than to remind you of what great dangers our civilisation must now face in dealing with the actual fascists in our midst.

    One thing I have learned from observing the authoritarian Regessive Left is that when they start labelling someone – racist, bigot, fascist, misogynist etc – it is not only to control what that person thinks, speaks or writes, and also to shut them up, but also because those words are effectively a mirror reflecting back into the mind of the Socialist.

    In other words – “When you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you.”

    They unwittingly accuse others of the very sins that they themselves commit.

  2. 2dogs

    The term “fascist” is becoming old. You may as well call someone a Bonapartist. Or, at least, it will soon be that way.

  3. Herodotus

    So far Trump has achieved record voter turnouts. If he wins it will be because the things he says appeal to a lot of voters. We could use a politician that says more things that appeal to conservative and swing voters, and who can take the fight up to the leftist complicit (“how can we help”) media. The NYT wants to sack the voters and just have Hillary win.

    I’m thinking (dreaming, I know) of a politician who puts the national interest first rather than simply wanting the PM job to round out his life’s story, or one who is just a front man for Big Union.

    Such a politician might also point out repeatedly during an election campaign that giving him a majority in the Reps is good, but that he also needs a strong Senate vote in order to achieve his stated objectives as mandated by the voters. Such a politician would take note of how Trump handles the media, and how some eastern european leaders stick up for their countries in the midst of reffeaux madness.

  4. Siltstone

    The next edition of the NYT will carry a special supplement instructing readers how to look under their beds for evil boogeymen.

  5. Ellen of Tasmania

    It seems to me that they are using the term ‘fascist’ to mean ‘nationalist’ – that is, anyone who is opposed to a global agenda. It would be interesting to ask them if you could be in favour of secure national borders without being a fascist.

    Don’t like the UN and its agenda? Fascist.

  6. srr

    You know those riots going on in Paris, that the Anti-Trump Fascist West is desperate to pretend aren’t happening, well they wouldn’t be happening without armies of young Fascists constantly getting away with attempted murders –

    US citizen among attackers who smashed & torched police car during Paris riots (VIDEO)

    France paralyzed by the ‘War of the Lefts’

    https://www.rt.com/news/344808-american-busted-paris-riot/

    France: Molotov cocktails fly at explosive labour reform protest in Paris

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVAsLghXacM

    And yes, it has been going on for months, but it’s Fascists Against Fascist, tearing Europe apart over who gets to finish tearing Europe apart, so really, there is no way for the Fascist EU&UN Propagandist Media to spin it to serve them.

    btw, these Same Fascist Cells IN Australia, not only get protective spin from commercial media here (especially Fairfax), but Government FUNDS their Radio Station, Business and Meeting Centres … oh, and They Hate Trump to, and his supporters, violently …

  7. Pyrmonter

    Not a fascist, no. But a strongman, disdainful of the rule of law in the worst fashion of the leaders of banana republics. Those deluded fools who see in him some echo or Reagan, or the “strong leader” needed to pull a country together really need to reconsider their political perspectives.

    As good a time as any to brush this one off; I suspect the comments on fascism will come in handy over the next 6 months:


    Politics and the English Language

    Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

    Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.

    These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad — I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen — but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples. I number them so that I can refer back to them when necessary:

    1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien [sic] to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.

    Professor Harold Laski (Essay in Freedom of Expression)

    2. Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder .

    Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossa)

    3. On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?

    Essay on psychology in Politics (New York)

    4. All the “best people” from the gentlemen’s clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.

    Communist pamphlet

    5. If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion’s roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream — as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as “standard English.” When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o’clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school-ma’amish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens!

    Letter in Tribune

    Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose construction is habitually dodged:

    Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically “dead” (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a “rift,” for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.

    Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth.

    Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic color, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers.* The jargon peculiar to

    *An interesting illustration of this is the way in which English flower names were in use till very recently are being ousted by Greek ones, Snapdragon becoming antirrhinum, forget-me-not becoming myosotis, etc. It is hard to see any practical reason for this change of fashion: it is probably due to an instinctive turning away from the more homely word and a vague feeling that the Greek word is scientific.

    Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.

    Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.† Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in

    † Example: Comfort’s catholicity of perception and image, strangely Whitmanesque in range, almost the exact opposite in aesthetic compulsion, continues to evoke that trembling atmospheric accumulative hinting at a cruel, an inexorably serene timelessness . . .Wrey Gardiner scores by aiming at simple bull’s-eyes with precision. Only they are not so simple, and through this contented sadness runs more than the surface bittersweet of resignation.” (Poetry Quarterly)

    the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, “The outstanding feature of Mr. X’s work is its living quality,” while another writes, “The immediately striking thing about Mr. X’s work is its peculiar deadness,” the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

    Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

    I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

    Here it is in modern English:

    Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

    This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit (3) above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations — race, battle, bread — dissolve into the vague phrases “success or failure in competitive activities.” This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing — no one capable of using phrases like “objective considerations of contemporary phenomena” — would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase (“time and chance”) that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes.

    As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier — even quicker, once you have the habit — to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry — when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech — it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash — as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot — it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. Look again at the examples I gave at the beginning of this essay. Professor Laski (1) uses five negatives in fifty three words. One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip — alien for akin — making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness. Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means; (3), if one takes an uncharitable attitude towards it, is simply meaningless: probably one could work out its intended meaning by reading the whole of the article in which it occurs. In (4), the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink. In (5), words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning — they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another — but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

    In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a “party line.” Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

    In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

    “While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.”

    The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find — this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify — that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

    But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one’s elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning’s post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he “felt impelled” to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence I see: “[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany’s social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe.” You see, he “feels impelled” to write — feels, presumably, that he has something new to say — and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one’s mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.

    I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. There is a long list of flyblown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible to laugh the not un- formation out of existence*, to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases

    *One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.

    and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable. But all these are minor points. The defense of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.

    To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a “standard English” which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one’s meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a “good prose style.” On the other hand, it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose — not simply accept — the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one’s words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

    (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

    (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

    (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

    (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

    (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

    (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

    These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.

    I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don’t know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin, where it belongs.

  8. srr

    WOW!
    That sure was one hell of a huge block of PANIC!
    [and what is it with Fascists and their Pyro tendencies]

    Reminder –
    The 2016 Trump Conservative Critics Were 2009 Obama Fan Boys…

    Posted on May 30, 2016 by sundance

    By now almost everyone has acknowledged that Donald Trump ripped the masks from most of the modern professional punditry who espoused to be conservative yet showed their hidden ideological colors as elite globalists.

    Most notably evidenced in June ’15 as millions of Fox News viewers saw the entire line-up of professional pundits proclaim: borders shouldn’t matter; border walls won’t work; illegal alien amnesty was the only viable solution to decades of unenforced immigration law; ObamaCare is not really all that bad, and the federal government doesn’t really need a budget.

    Heck, to think, this was only in week #1 of Donald Trump’s campaign.

    [image: rich lowry, George Will, Krauthammer Bill Kristol]

    Since June ’15, on almost every issue those same pundits have now openly aligned themselves with GOPe agenda items like global trade, tax policy, big government spending, and advocacy to including advancement of Speaker Paul ‘Omnibus’ Ryan.

    However, as sharp reader DrudgeAddict smartly pointed out last year, these voices were the exact group who gathered together in an exclusive meeting with President Obama in 2009 to sing his praises after the ’08 election. Including :
    Continue reading ?
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/30/reminder-the-2016-trump-conservative-critics-were-2009-obama-fan-boys/comment-page-1/#comment-2541014

  9. Ainsley

    As Andrew Klavan likes to say ‘the former newspaper, The New York Times’. Speaking constantly of the Left and its horrible institutions in the aspirational tense is really annoying to them but also quite satisfying I find.

  10. Ainsley

    Sorry I meant aspirational PAST tense.

  11. Tom

    Pyrmonter wins Longest Cat Post Eva! Just as well the intro alerted us to the idiocy of the content so we didn’t have to read it.

  12. Roger

    the imposition of an ideology to which every member of the community must subscribe
    a police state in which opponents of the regime are in peril of their lives and are often imprisoned
    a centrally planned economy
    suppression of dissent
    a state run media

    Sounds like the Greens’ dream manifesto.

  13. JohnA

    srr #2043895, posted on May 31, 2016 at 8:12 am

    WOW!
    That sure was one hell of a huge block of PANIC!
    [and what is it with Fascists and their Pyro tendencies]

    Yes, but poor Eric Arthur Blair had already been disillusioned by the establishment church (in Burma under the British Raj) and then Communism and Fascism (during the Spanish Civil War).

    Thus, he had nowhere to turn – or so it would seem.

    As a Christian, I also would be disillusioned by those same failed institutions and ideologies, but I remain optimistic because of my faith – which is not in “the church” or “politics” or “idealism” but in the transcendent yet immanent, omnipotent, omniscient God Who speaks via the Bible.

  14. Arky

    I would rather read my own splattered entrails than Pyrmonters un- attributed quote.

  15. Jobson Grothe

    If the vast majority of you here had the chance and thought you could get away it, you’d have the jackboots on in a flash and be throwing “internationalist Marxists” and other perceived enemies of the corporate state into concentration camps.

    Just look at some of the unhinged rhetoric employed here about inner city progressives, for example.

  16. A Lurker

    If the vast majority of you here had the chance and thought you could get away it, you’d have the jackboots on in a flash and be throwing “internationalist Marxists” and other perceived enemies of the corporate state into concentration camps.

    I present to Jobson Grothe a full-length mirror in which he may admire his trollish self.

  17. srr

    Oh, and remember that FASCIST ZUCKERBERG is Pro-Fascist Merkel/EU and Anti-Trump … sure it’s a ‘private‘ company (IF you buy all the BS around the miraculous rise of a handful of individuals dominating Global Electronic Communications), and no one has to use it, IF they’re willing to Pay The Price –

    Tenants angry after apartment building orders them to ‘friend’ it on Facebook
    Technically Incorrect: The owners of a Salt Lake City apartment building change the tenancy agreement and give tenants five days to like the building on Facebook. Or else.

    There’s something forced about Facebook relationships.

    If someone “friends” you, you feel duty-bound to reciprocate. Even if that person is, well, entirely unknown to you.

    That forced feeling can go too far.

    As KSL-TV reports, residents of an apartment building in Salt Lake City, Utah, say they found a curious piece of paper stuck to their doors.

    Headlined “Facebook Addendum,” it had fascinating stipulations.

    It insisted that tenants had five days to “friend” the City Park Apartments on Facebook or they’d be in breach of their lease. The fact that they’d already signed their lease perhaps months previously didn’t seem to matter to the owners.

    Oh, and then there was the part about releasing the building owners to post pictures of the tenants or their visitors to, yes, the building’s Facebook page.

    You will also be traumatized into delirium when I tell you that another stipulation was that the tenants don’t post anything negative on social media. This seems a strangely unbalanced “friendship.”

    One tenant, Jason Ring, told KSL: “I don’t want to be forced to be someone’s friend and be threatened to break my lease because of that.”

    Ring believes it’s a violation of his privacy. It’s hard not to sympathize. What right does an apartment complex have to force you to use a social network? What if you don’t even have a Facebook account? Do you try to negotiate and say you’ll give them a nice Yelp review?

    Perhaps the owners thought this was reasonable, modern behavior. The building’s managers, Apartment Management Consultants, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did Facebook, when asked whether the apartment building’s actions might be against its terms of service.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/tenants-angry-after-apartment-building-forces-them-to-like-it-on-facebook/

  18. struth

    If the vast majority of you here had the chance and thought you could get away it, you’d have the jackboots on in a flash and be throwing “internationalist Marxists” and other perceived enemies of the corporate state into concentration camps.

    Just look at some of the unhinged rhetoric employed here about inner city progressives, for example

    Herein with this one comment, this person proves the above article.

    You really can be that thick.

    By the way.

    NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST Workers Party.

  19. Fred Lenin

    Trump as a fascist pales into insignificance compared to tge socialist fascists Hitler,Mussolini, Ulyanov,Stalin,Mao,PolPot, Mugabe,Castro,Chavez,Allende the list of Narxist Fascists is endless ,we have our own share of them . The Narxists are really worried all their cunning plans will be shattered when Trump rings the bell of Freedom for the US and the Western World ,and the peopke use their democratic rights to Destroy the Narxist Fascist plot to one world unelected government,start the ball rolling here,Vote Australian Liberty Alliance in the senate .

  20. srr

    As a Christian, I also would be disillusioned by those same failed institutions and ideologies, but I remain optimistic because of my faith – which is not in “the church” or “politics” or “idealism” but in the transcendent yet immanent, omnipotent, omniscient God Who speaks via the Bible.

    It’s good to come across others who get it. 🙂

  21. Tel

    Not a fascist, no. But a strongman, disdainful of the rule of law in the worst fashion of the leaders of banana republics. Those deluded fools who see in him some echo or Reagan, or the “strong leader” needed to pull a country together really need to reconsider their political perspectives.

    Wait a moment here, “disdainful of the rule of law”, what? Compared to Mr Pen & Phone? Compared to Little Miss What Difference Does It Make?

    How about those Bernie Sanders supporters? Lawful riots perhaps, lawful destruction of property no doubt. You don’t hear Bernie doing much to discourage his yobbos.

    What about Mr Place Holder, guns for drug gangs no problem! Talk about respect for the rule of law.

  22. @ A Lurker the very first comment.

    It’s called ‘projection’ I believe Lurker. Lets test it out see if it’s true.

    Obama administration:

    * the imposition of an ideology to which every member of the community must subscribe. CHECK
    * a police state in which opponents of the regime are in peril of their lives and are often imprisoned. NO but getting there.
    * a centrally planned economy. CHECK
    * suppression of dissent. CHECK
    * a state run media. CHECK
    Note: Point two will be implemented as soon as Hillary gets elected. Recall the 12 State Attorneys General wanting to use RICO to prosecute AGW ‘deniers’.

  23. Hi Tel
    Yep, projecting is now a reflex reaction to that mob.

  24. * a police state in which opponents of the regime are in peril of their lives and are often imprisoned. NO but getting there.

    Did you forget about Dinesh D’Souza who was imprisoned for nothing?

  25. A Lurker

    It’s called ‘projection’ I believe Lurker. Lets test it out see if it’s true.

    Exactly true. They project onto others, the evil that resides in their own dark hearts.

  26. The reality, however, is that fascism is a Soviet-type Marxist socialism without its international dimension. Any ideology can be at its centre as long as it claims to be absolute truth from which no deviations are permitted.

    The second sentence is correct, and completely repudiates the first one. For instance, Trump’s fascism is laced with laissez-faire capitalism and protectionism. His presidency would lead to a global depression, and any economist who advocates for him is delusional.

    Trump is not Hitler, he would not transform the economy into a war machine to build an empire. From the perspective of minorities and women, however, his policies would enable the state to cause a lot of pain and suffering through abandonment of previous standards of morality and legal conduct. White men who don’t care about this pain and suffering because their privileged position means they would be immune from it should be ignored.

  27. White men who don’t care about this pain and suffering because their privileged position means they would be immune from it should be ignored.

    Piss off monty you sexist bigot.

    Did you forget about Dinesh D’Souza who was imprisoned for nothing?

    Yes Mr Rusty, hadn’t had my coffee yet. Shift work.

  28. struth

    The reality, however, is that fascism is a Soviet-type Marxist socialism without its international dimension

    According to Monty, this is wrong, because the “bundle of sticks’ Italian Fascist dictator was allied to the Free world during WW2.
    FMD.
    Fascism is defined by putting the state above the individual.
    Top down government.
    Who was the last Fascist dictator in the western free market Anglosphere?

  29. Who was the last Fascist dictator in the western free market Anglosphere?

    De Klerk.

  30. Robert Crew

    they cannot criticise Trump on the specifics of what he has in mind

    because the media can’t even accurately repeat what he has said. Virtually every criticism I’ve heard of Trump is some strawman based on the speaker’s/writer’s imagination of what they misheard or think he said – they imagine some twisted scenario then demolish it in their mind, and wonder why his fans aren’t impressed.

    Trump
    * never said all Mexicans are rapists
    * never said he’d impose general tariffs across the board
    * never said he admired Putin,
    * never said women should be jailed for having abortions, and he
    * never said he would kill the families of terrorists
    these things only happened in the fevered imaginations of trolls who fail at reading comprehension, and the idiots who believe what those trolls write, instead of listening to what the man actually said.

  31. struth

    White men who don’t care about this pain and suffering because their privileged position means they would be immune from it should be ignored.

    Baa Humbug….
    It’s also sexist, although in Monty’s head, because HE said it, it’s fine.
    Only old white men are racist in the eyes of the left, and they cannot for the life of them work out how anyone could see that statement as being age-ist, racist or sexist.
    ‘Cause they said it……….

  32. struth

    De Klerk

    Ha ha.
    Try again

  33. struth

    their privileged position

    Because they’re WHITE MEN.

    The racism and sexism instantly followed up with the politics of envy and entitlement.

    Watch out, the leftism is oozing from his pores today.

  34. Apartheid was indistinguishable from fascism, especially if you were black. Capitalism seemed to do well in conjunction, until the sanctions hit.

  35. Muddy

    2dogs:
    The term “fascist” is becoming old.

    Our ideological enemies appropriate and redefine words and concepts to suit them, and we passively sit back and hope ‘the people’ will see the world how we see it. Our enemies, however, have already grabbed the audience by their emotions, and are squeezing. We need to start appropriating and redefining words and concepts they value and return the favour. It won’t be easy, as the tools of propaganda are against us, but this is something small we can do ourselves. We often do it casually on this blog, but how do we propagate things further? I’d like to see a Cat Alternative Dictionary.

  36. Ray

    Fascism principally pursues a nationalist agenda. Its social, political and economic agenda is thus heavily influences by its nationalist core. As a result, fascism is culturally conservative, political totalitarian and on the economic front, pursues autarchy. Its nationalist base provides an all pervasive confidence in the superiority of its moral cause and so it is more than willing to entertain violence to achieve its political, social and economic goals.

    Trump is not a fascist. However, his protectionist stance, racial stereotyping and failure to eschew violence are all part of fascism ideology and, as such, give substantial justification for the label.

  37. struth

    South Africa is not the Anglosphere Monty.
    Again , you only see colour.

    The anglosphere is Great Britain, USA, Canada , Australia and New Zealand.
    Not some half arsed attempt like South Africa.

  38. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sounds like the Greens’ dream manifesto.

    I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps the CFMEU should adopt brown shirts as a work uniform so building site dust doesn’t stand out. Also the ETU can have black uniforms with lightning bolts on their epaulets since they are into electrical stuff.

  39. Muddy

    White men who don’t care about this pain and suffering because their privileged position means they would be immune from it should be ignored.
    Monty, I very seldom attack anyone personally on here because that is neither my style, nor do I consider it constructive. However, recycling this conspiracy about the patriarchy is unacceptable. Find a solid piece of furniture and smack your head into it repeatedly until the fairy dust trickles from your ears.

  40. Menai Pete

    These days the term fascist embodies any enemy or critic of marxism. It harks back to WW2 when the enemy of the communists was fascist Germany.

  41. Nice try struth, but last time I checked, South Africans spoke a lot of English.

    Pat Buchanan called Trump the Great White Hope the other day.

  42. struth

    It won’t be easy, as the tools of propaganda are against us, but this is something small we can do ourselves. We often do it casually on this blog, but how do we propagate things further? I’d like to see a Cat Alternative Dictionary.

    It all starts in our schools.
    This is why they have the propaganda upper hand.
    This is why “safe schools”.
    We will never gain control of the narrative while we don’t get that the left work on the principle that you only have to get them when they are young, and by the time they realise and work out they’ve been shafted, it’s too late.
    People don’t live forever, so you never have to fool all the people all the time, because they die.
    You only have to fool some of the people some of the time, and get them teaching the next generation.
    Without attacking our Marxist education system, we are pushing shit uphill with a needle.
    A bit of pressure applied to the insulated, institutionalised commies plying their trade, by exposing them to daylight would go a very long way.
    IMHO.

  43. FelixKruell

    The plain reality is that they cannot criticise Trump on the specifics of what he has in mind since even to state Trump’s aims would only add to his support.

    Part of the problem is that he has taken both sides of most issues, often to dramatic excess. No-one has any idea of what he would do once in power. If you take him at (some of) his word, much of what he intends to do would indeed be scary.

    Much as I like his anti-PC approach to politics, I would struggle to support someone who is so vague and inconsistent on what they plan to do, or what they believe in.

  44. However, recycling this conspiracy about the patriarchy is unacceptable.

    Muddy, mate, don’t come the raw prawn. You’re not kidding anyone.

  45. struth

    Nice try struth, but last time I checked, South Africans spoke a lot of English.

    So do most Germans, (who up until recently were mostly white), so you probably think they, like their Dutch neighbours and their colonies are anglosphere as well, but that is only you not being able to see over your racist “fence”.
    The “anglosphere is a relatively new term, used to describe the nations above, not whoever else you decide is white enough to join.

  46. Roger

    Nice try struth, but last time I checked, South Africans spoke a lot of English.

    I would venture to suggest. monty, that the term Anglosphere is understood in two ways – most literally, countries where English is the national language, and in a cultural-political sense, in which case it denotes the UK, Australia, Canada New Zealand and the US. Since becoming a republic in 1961, South Africa has charted it own course politically and culturally.

  47. Muddy

    Monty, I realise you’re doing this to kickstart your pulse, but can’t you try sewing your eyeballs together or something more productive?

  48. struth

    Also, to prove it has nothing to do with race, Hong Kong would have been classified as an Anglosphere state, but the term has only been used since the Chinese takeover, and therefore it is ONLY those countries mentioned above.

  49. Muddy

    Struth: The first target needs to be the enablers, like the media. You can’t do that without strong, inspiring leadership though. Monty, are you available?

  50. Roger

    It all starts in our schools.

    Quite right, struth.

    As I noted the other day, kids are socialised into a Leftist worldview in schools and universities. In a culture where the bonds of tradition are progressively being weakened and people are not taught to think critically or logically, but rather to emote, the pressure to conform to the Left’s narrative is overwhelming for most young people. Questioning the narrative means being ostracised and even hated; it takes a very strong minded and independent young person to resist that pressure.

  51. Pat Buchanan called Trump the Great White Hope the other day.

    It is a term appropriated from a previous era of heavyweight boxing, that these days is in general usage, and is applied in a variety of situations that have little to do with race or colour.

    But then, you knew that . . .

  52. Pyrmonter

    Arky: Orwell indeed. Does the most famous essay of the 1940s need attribution, esp given its oft-cited remarks about “fascism”?

  53. A Lurker

    Apartheid was indistinguishable from fascism, especially if you were black.

    So Monty, working under the assumption that Universities traditionally are places of free and unfettered speech and free and unfettered debate – why then do they feel the need to have race-specific computer labs and other racially specific ‘safe space’ locations that deny entry to others not of that race?

    Surely that must mean that those Universities not only encourage Apartheid, but also are fascist in nature?

  54. jupes

    It harks back to WW2 when the enemy of the communists was fascist Germany.

    Excluding of course the 22 months when they were allies.

  55. struth

    Struth: The first target needs to be the enablers, like the media. You can’t do that without strong, inspiring leadership though. Monty, are you available?

    Do you know who teaches journalism in this shit hole of a country?
    It is THE most “marched through” institution we have.

    It all starts in our schools.

  56. Muddy

    Struth: I don’t disagree with your premise, however without controlling, or at least neutralising, the dominant tools of propaganda (in our case, the mainstream media for one), it will be like the proverbial ‘uphill battle’ trying to de-program or unwind the damage that has been done. In life in general, if you isolate a person or organisation from support, they or it will be easier to conquer. The key lies in undermining the support, passive or active, that the political and social insurgents now enjoy. We need to find ways of metaphorically separating the head from the body.

  57. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    I have not here been considering the literary use of language

    That pretentious writer certainly wasn’t.
    Rather like the ‘plain English’ school that was popular for a while. Write like a dunce.

  58. rich

    controlling, or at least neutralising, the dominant tools of propaganda (in our case, the mainstream media for one)

    Issue is that progressives know that culture, art and storytelling count, while conservatives often downplay or discount the most important of elements

    Why else do you think they are so quick to put artists, writers and journalists on the public teet?

    It’s actually not a question of more control, but of less so that the free market can take its course.

  59. It all starts in our schools.

    +100 Struth

    Anybody who thinks the current mess can even be tackled, let alone reversed, without first starting with the education system, is both kidding themselves, and wasting their time.

    Forget the politicians, they are just useful fools useless tools.
    Forget the media, they are simply one visible end product of the education system.
    The cancerous leprosy eating away at our society from within, is born in our universities, suckled on the blood of our little children, and fattened in our high schools. The disease is cultured, nurtured and spread via certain education-related departments within our federal and state governments.

  60. struth

    I totally agree Muddy.
    There is not one solution and many battle fronts.
    Being able to do things and actually achieve them is how I am thinking.
    With the use of social media, for example, say Bolt, doing a study on the “behind the scenes commos who organise the Melbourne Communist conference, (Journalism lecturers) exposing them to the world and asking the question, was the journalist you just got your news from brainwashed by this twat? (worded better of course)
    A list of journalists that have been taught by those communists, (all of them) and then making those journalists prove their bipartisanship or not.
    This sort of stuff does not cost a great deal and you bypass what will never work for you.
    Politicians and the ballot box.

    Exposing the rot.
    The more people become aware of the cultural Marxism attack and the march through the institutions, even if it only equates to the politically unaware going through life not blindly taking the word of journalists, that is huge.
    I have not expressed my point well here, but I hope you get it still.

  61. Muddy

    Rich:
    Sorry, that was a bit ambiguous of me – I didn’t mean state control of the media. I meant using the market to achieve our ends. Our enemies have done that, so it must be possible, either by competition, or by somehow undermining what now exists.

    As the mainstream media (with a few exceptions perhaps?) is the dominant vehicle by which our ideological enemies publish their message, hijacking or damaging that propaganda tool will affect our opponents’ productivity. I not yet sure of what tactics to use, but I do think targeting the media is a prerequisite for further action.

  62. Muddy

    Struth:
    I think I understand your underlying point. I too struggle to define in words what I exactly mean. My point with the education system and the media (a broad generalisation, I know), is that you don’t pick a strong target you are not confident of conquering. You either pick a weaker target, or work at weakening your desired target. No-one consciously sets themselves up to fail. Elements of our media will protect the education system not because they truly believe in the underlying narrative, but because they see benefit for themselves in doing so. There is such things as true altruism. Without there being something in it for us, we don’t do it, whatever ‘it’ is. If there is no benefit for the media in protecting an education system under attack, they will not, and our chosen target will be easier to destroy, and hence rebuild. Clear as Muddy?

  63. struth, is your point that South Africa does not have the political traditions of the Anglosphere, based around the Westminster system? Because they only got rid of apartheid after they abolished the Westminster system in their country in the 80s. Apartheid and the Westminster system went hand in hand.

    If you’re trying to argue that the Anglosphere is somehow immune from fascist tendencies due to some mythical cultural antibody, I am going to laugh at you.

  64. Muddy

    NO such thing as true altruism that should read.

  65. rich

    Our enemies have done that, so it must be possible, either by competition, or by somehow undermining what now exists.

    No they haven’t- they’ve used the government to interfere in the market by subsidizing spread of their views with monies seized at gunpoint. Their ABC is a great example.

    hijacking or damaging that propaganda tool will affect our opponents’ productivity.

    If you want to start doing that, start producing art worth reblogging. That American Sniper movie was a start.
    The Left are great at co-opting institutions due to the iron law of bureaucracy- privatizing education and removing art subsidies are the start of a counter-attack

    While they hold those two levers the country is in big trouble. Even the media is subordinate to those two levers.

  66. It is a term appropriated from a previous era of heavyweight boxing, that these days is in general usage, and is applied in a variety of situations that have little to do with race or colour.

    The full article, written as I said by noted race-baiting far-right politician Pat Buchanan, is concerned wholly and solely with bemoaning the plight of the White Man. He’s not even bothering to dog whistle, it’s like reading a post on the front of storms.

  67. So Monty, working under the assumption that Universities traditionally are places of free and unfettered speech and free and unfettered debate – why then do they feel the need to have race-specific computer labs and other racially specific ‘safe space’ locations that deny entry to others not of that race?

    Surely that must mean that those Universities not only encourage Apartheid, but also are fascist in nature?

    Baaaahahahaha! Oh Lurker, you’re such a clown. Kudos on your dedication though, it takes a lot of work for you to sound so dumb.

  68. C.L.

    Worth remembering that Lee Harvey Oswald was a mainstream leftist.
    James Earl Ray – killer of Republican icon Martin Luther King Jr – was a Democrat Party staffer.

  69. Ah yes Lurker, and CL reminds us in timely fashion of how much work you still have left to do to get near the greats of derpitude. Watch and learn, CL has forgotten more than you’ll ever know about how to post like a Freeper chatbot.

  70. struth

    If you’re trying to argue that the Anglosphere is somehow immune from fascist tendencies due to some mythical cultural antibody, I am going to laugh at you.

    Why would I say that?
    I’m arguing with an Australian based fascist!

    But the point is, at the moment anyway, I am still able to argue with one.
    That is a direct result of this “mythical” cultural thing called freedom of speech, in particular free English speech, that language’s benefits, property rights, and the free market policies and hard lessons learned, that were at least once in place.
    In the prescribed countries of the anglosphere, as recognised, there has as yet been no fascist dictators.
    In the history of the world, these political “states” are quite old.
    Many countries are younger.
    My point is easy to understand.
    Until the likes of you and your lot become powerful enough to bring about your corrupt socialist misery from the inside, that “mythical” cultural antibody and it’s success is proven historical fact.

  71. cohenite

    There is no essential difference between fascism and communism. Fascism is supposedly rooted in nationalism but the effect is identical. The left embody tyranny of the fascistic and communistic variety where the bulk of people are constrained by an ideology which is enforced by the self appointed bien peasants.

  72. Andreas

    Even quite a few people on this blog have equated nationalism with fascism. It’s as stupid as leftists calling Thatcher or Howard a fascist.

    Nationalism is in fact essential for democracy to work. It’s no surprise that as nationalist sentiment has eroded in the West so the quality of our democracies has gone to ?.

  73. The thing that gets me about the MTTI (March through the Institutions) is this; if their ideology is so great and wonderful then surely it could stand on it’s own two feet in the marketplace of ideas without having to use taxpayers funds or ostracise and marginalise those outside their groupthink. As Struth & Muddy argue here and elsewhere, it does seem like an impossible task to fight back against the totalitarian left and their vile ideology and there are various ideas on how to do this. It is not a lost cause as despite having almost total control of education and media our schools and Uni’s still churn out kids who believe in and support freedom and the Western Liberal tradition. People naturally get freedom and liberty, it’s a natural instinct, so there is always something to work with. The problem I see is that we have no confidence in ourselves, we do not support each other and we fail to understand how to use the lefts tactics against them. There is no point attacking until we are united as a force. The left are just little clumps of shit yet they roll together to make one giant, stinking avalanche of shit. You can stop an avalanche of shit with a strong wall, only the wall has to be built out of all the little rocks. Silly analogies aside, the place to start is in our own back yard, concentrate on building ourselves up and restoring our confidence and flushing the little turds out to sea will be an achievable goal.

  74. The full article, written as I said by noted race-baiting far-right politician Pat Buchanan, is concerned wholly and solely with bemoaning the plight of the White Man.

    Utterly irrelevant, Monty. You didn’t quote “the full article”; you didn’t even provide a link to “the full article”. You used the term “Great White Hope” as a stand-alone “proof” of a racist white attitude, knowing full well the term has long had a greatly expanded meaning.

  75. Empire

    Apartheid was indistinguishable from fascism, especially if you were black. Capitalism seemed to do well in conjunction, until the sanctions hit.

    Totalitarian regimes share common characteristics. RSA during apartheid cannot be described as a genuine free market economy because property rights were not universal.

    Carry on with your scrambled dissembling commie lardarse. I encourage everyone to dedicate time to their unique talents, however limited the utility of the output.

  76. In the prescribed countries of the anglosphere, as recognised, there has as yet been no fascist dictators.
    In the history of the world, these political “states” are quite old.

    Mmyes, well if you’re going with that line, might I suggest you look a bit further back in England’s history. Cromwell, in particular, who is a hero of the British fascist movement.

  77. Utterly irrelevant, Monty. You didn’t quote “the full article”; you didn’t even provide a link to “the full article”. You used the term “Great White Hope” as a stand-alone “proof” of a racist white attitude, knowing full well the term has long had a greatly expanded meaning.

    MV, now that I have provided the link to give the quote its full context, do you disagree that it was used in this specific instance in a racial context?

  78. RSA during apartheid cannot be described as a genuine free market economy because property rights were not universal.

    It was a perfectly free market economy, as long as you were white. Fascism and capitalism, working together.

  79. A Lurker

    Baaaahahahaha! Oh Lurker, you’re such a clown. Kudos on your dedication though, it takes a lot of work for you to sound so dumb.

    I notice that you didn’t even attempt to answer my question, instead, you went straight to a personal insult. So I’ll ask you again in simpler language…

    Why are Universities choosing to create racially separate places on their campuses?
    Does this policy, which is fundamentally similar to Apartheid, then make Universities fascist?

    Answers, not insults please next time.

  80. Des Deskperson

    Speaking of fascism, here’s a quote, via Tim Blair, from ‘Emingway Fitzsimmons who has joined the push to maintain cultural protectionism for Australian authors. He wants a, well, ambience:

    “where Australian stories are told to Australians”.

    Substitute ‘Italian’ and ‘Italians’ for ‘Australian’ and ‘Australians’ and you have Mussolini’s cultural policy in a nutshell, (uno guscio). He called it ‘cultural autarchy’. Fitz and his mates are all Fascists.

    And,BTW, the only key difference between Fascism and Marxist-Leninism is that while the former actually expropriated the means of production, the latter were content simply to closely control it.

  81. Affirmative action is not fascism, Lurker. If you need to have that explained to you, I can’t help you. I laughed at you because your contention was silly.

  82. Don’t you lot ark up when silly leftists accuse the right of fascism for frivolous culture war reasons? And yet you’re doing exactly the same thing.

  83. Muddy

    Mr. Rusty:
    You can also use a high pressure hose. Your point is a solid one though. I too have noted that we on this end of the spectrum tend to be individuals, but on the other side, they fight as a collective, albeit a loose one. And yes, understanding their tactics and deploying counter-tactics are essential, but prior to that comes acknowledgement of the seriousness of the situation, and leadership.
    It CAN be done. Most of us are quite aware of how this came to be, but what is required is agreement on the countermeasures and co-ordination in acting upon them.

  84. ella

    m0nty
    #2044088, posted on May 31, 2016 at 11:59 am

    You seem to know a considerable amount about South Africa. Have you ever lived in South Africa, Monty?

  85. Silly analogies aside, the place to start is in our own back yard, concentrate on building ourselves up and restoring our confidence and flushing the little turds out to sea will be an achievable goal.

    Good luck with that, Rusty. Over half the regulars here are still going to vote Liberal “cos at least they’re not Labor”, and most of the rest are going to second-preference the Liberals and delude themselves that somehow it will make a difference, or teach a lesson.

    If it is impossible to get erstwhile intelligent conservatives to register ONE protest vote just ONCE in their miserable lives, you’ve got buckley’s of getting them involved in anything more demanding.
    I know, I’ve wasted the last thirty years of my life trying.

  86. A Lurker

    Affirmative action is not fascism, Lurker.

    So when Whites do it, it’s Fascism and Subjugating?
    When Blacks do it, it’s Affirmative action and Empowering?

    Interesting. I’d like you to explain your reasoning to those University Students who are currently suffering the full fascist force of LawFare for the temerity of entering an affirmative action premises and then using their supposed freedom of speech to complain about it afterwards.

  87. struth

    I also agree Mr Rusty.
    However, the point I make is this, if we could stop funding the left through taxation, they would immediately collapse.
    Utterly and completely.
    They need to take money by force to survive.
    Taking the money away fixes it overnight.
    However, that relies on politicians, and as we have seen with just the ABC, that ain’t gonna happen.
    It has now gone too far.
    That is why I believe social media exposing the MTTI and pointing the finger hard, strong and loud at the hidden corruption, at the actual individuals doing this with our taxes, is now critical.
    Look at Roz Ward.
    It should already be in jail, in my opinion, but exposing that sick ,( exactly the type I am speaking of), until recently hidden filth, has had very beneficial outcomes.
    Exposing that thing, has politicians ducking for cover, and so it should.
    Exposing the hard core radical Marxist for what it is.
    It should also be made to explain itself to the population forced to pay for it’s traitorous child abuse.
    (Then apologies and work the rest of it’s life to pay back it’s ill-gotten funding!)
    Exposing the MTTI by exposing the sickness of the actual individuals doing the marching, and holding them to account, also holds those accomplice pollies that fund them to account.
    They are OUR f….ing institutions, and they are under attack.
    Attack those that are attacking them.
    Personally.
    Bring them out of their holes.
    Let Australians know what they are paying for.
    Social media can do this at a low cost.
    It just requires freedom of speech and integrity.
    It is what the likes of one time lefty Andrew Bolt have not yet quite thought through.
    Working out where the source of our problems are.
    In short, anywhere, not just education, but anywhere those actual individuals are working against us while using our money, those individuals, not their organisations, their club, their university, but those individuals need to be rightly , exposed and attacked.
    Attacking organisations means that even if you got that organisation shut down, those like Roz Ward, would just start up another one behind the scenes and keep going.

  88. I’m all for the high pressure hose a this stage Muddy, things have gone too far for any kind of sensible turnback. I would prefer the right way which is to defund all institutions controlled by the left and let the market decide (oh and make all schools independent with school vouchers). But I think the left need to learn a lesson and they need to learn it good and hard. They have built the machine and one day someone they don’t like will come along and take it over, then feed them to it. As they are fed into the machine they might finally wakeup; “But, but, but…this is OUR machine that WE built to feed OUR enemies into!”. Whether they learn their lesson as they piece themselves back together is another question entirely.

  89. MV, now that I have provided the link to give the quote its full context, do you disagree that it was used in this specific instance in a racial context?

    I see you have at least one thing in common with Howard and Turdbull, Monty. However, I am no more a fan of “retrospective argument” than I am of “retrospective legislation”.

    A link provided an hour and a half after your initial comment is utterly irrelevant to the context of your original comment. What may, or may not, be contained in the link is utterly irrelevant to my reply to your original comment.

  90. rich

    People naturally get freedom and liberty, it’s a natural instinct, so there is always something to work with. The problem I see is that we have no confidence in ourselves

    @MR Rusty

    The problem is you fundamentally misdiagnose the problem. The left do have a ground to stand on , which is a fertile darkness within the human soul.

    These are its characteristics
    1- the desire to control things, to optimise things including other humans… people may get “liberty” as in “my liberty” but they want to be “at liberty to tell others what to do at the point of a gun”, i.e. the puritans…

    It’s based on a hypocrisy similar to the line, “Everyone is conservative with their own money.”

    which leads to item 2.

    2- the desire to be morally superior to others on issues such as SSM and climate change
    3- those who believe community defines morality (promotion of groupthink and “consensus scientism”)
    4- those who believe feelings trump logic, reason, evidence and statistics
    5- myopia in believing that all people can be engineered to be good people
    6- the belief that anyone who disagrees with them is an evil heathen
    the bar for entry is far lower and, as the ambitious among them take over our educational institutions, the bar gets lower, and lower, and lower….
    it’s not an issue of confidence, but an issue of those who are “other directed” who have outsourced thinking for themselves to experts. They have been indocrinated to bleat, “four legs good, two legs better”
    The way to win is to split the rainbow coalition marching through institutions. You have to wedge them on issues like gay marriage, immigration (the unions hate 457 visas) and the carbon tax.

    The reason why they haven’t taken over completely is because lefty logic is based on lies and theft- when put to the torch under evidence and reality, they melt in the sunshine.

  91. rich

    Whether they learn their lesson as they piece themselves back together is another question entirely.

    Nope.

    The French Revolutionaries were fed into the machine of Napoleon Bonaparte. There is a pattern here that humans seem to like repeating.

  92. Denis

    There is only one way to fix education in this country and that is to stop spending taxpayers money on it.

  93. Tel

    Much as I like his anti-PC approach to politics, I would struggle to support someone who is so vague and inconsistent on what they plan to do, or what they believe in.

    No, because Peter Garratt’s Law applies to all candidates. Obama turned out to be nothing like what he seemed. During the Bush Presidency, Obama gave fine speeches about the evil misuse of executive power, then went and misused executive power even worse whe he became President.

    An automatic presumption of perfidy should be normal. It isn’t a defining factor of Trump.

    The only one you can trust to do what he says is Bernie Sanders, and the only reason you can trust him is because all his ideas are bad. By the way, Sanders would also turn to protectionism, no different to Trump. Sanders is 100% owned by the unions, so he would ensure imports don’t interfere with union jobs.

    Sanders of course comes at protectionism from a different direction… he thinks all capitalism is bad and needs to be stamped out, just happens that international corporations are the more egregious example thus need to be stamped out harder and sooner. His conclusion is much the same as Trump though, only his wall building would not be so visible.

  94. struth

    In other words, do not fight leftism in the way it wants to be fought.
    As a group.

    We are of the right, and believe in the individual , and personal responsibility.
    When we fight the way we should fight, according to our values, individuals are responsible for their actions.
    Making individual lefties responsible for their actions, scrutinised without being able to hide behind the “group” or organisation, is a better way.
    Lefties are predominantly chicken shit, and scared of being singled out.
    They like groups.
    It would help keep the others thinking about their actions.
    We have been fighting the way the left want us to.
    I’m just putting out an alternative view on the way to fight them.
    There are many ways.

  95. However, the point I make is this, if we could stop funding the left through taxation, they would immediately collapse. Utterly and completely. They need to take money by force to survive. Taking the money away fixes it overnight. However, that relies on politicians, and as we have seen with just the ABC, that ain’t gonna happen.

    Relying on politicians is precisely how we got into this mess in the first place, Struth. Truth is, ordinary Australians could tear the whole sick edifice down in six to twelve weeks, if enough of them wanted to. Without protest marches, violence or anything else. Trouble is, not enough people care.

  96. John Comnenus

    Monty is a moron, De Klerk was a Boer who spoke Afrikaans. There was limited scope in apartheid South Africa for white English only speakers, especially in Government, the public service and military. That is because South Africa was not a part of the Anglosphere – it spoke a totally different language but just happened at one time to be in the Empire and Commonwealth.

    Now that the Boers are no longer dominant English is most widely used language because English is the language of freedom and democracy.

  97. John Comnenus

    And ofcourse President Executive Order Obama is not a fascist even though various courts have told him repeatedly that he exceeded his authority – especially on immigration.

  98. Des Deskperson

    ‘It was a perfectly free market economy, as long as you were white. ”

    Err, I think that there is a significant and obvious logical flaw in this statement

  99. Tel

    2- the desire to be morally superior to others on issues such as SSM and climate change

    If morality (and truth) are relative then it’s impossible for anyone to be morally superior to anyone else.

    At best a “Progressive” can say, I like your morality and I dislike that guys morality.

    In other words, there is no superiority, there is only membership of a group and constant reaffirmation of the approved group norms. It’s tribalism and nothing more than that.

  100. struth

    Mmyes, well if you’re going with that line, might I suggest you look a bit further back in England’s history. Cromwell, in particular, who is a hero of the British fascist movement.

    Should we go right back and call the Lord a Fascist because he wouldn’t let Adam and Eve eat the apple?

    You lost so badly on this.
    As usual.

  101. A link provided an hour and a half after your initial comment is utterly irrelevant to the context of your original comment. What may, or may not, be contained in the link is utterly irrelevant to my reply to your original comment.

    I said with the original quote that it came from Pat Buchanan. That was all the context that was needed. He was never going to use that phrase in anything other than a racial context, MV.

  102. Entropy

    Could India fit into the Anglosphere? It’s institutions are throughly Anglo, if there is currently a bit too Many whiffs of corruption.

  103. egg_

    the imposition of an ideology to which every member of the community must subscribe
    a police state in which opponents of the regime are in peril of their lives and are often imprisoned
    a centrally planned economy
    suppression of dissent
    a state run media

    Sounds like the Q&A agenda.

  104. Should we go right back and call the Lord a Fascist because he wouldn’t let Adam and Eve eat the apple?

    The Lord was not English. Nice logical fallacy there Struth, pity you can’t argue the facts.

  105. Bruce of Newcastle

    Monty is obviously having a personal crisis now that he’s realised he’s a fascist.

    We can help, Monty. All you need to do is ritually burn sell your copy of Das Kapital and embrace law and capitalism. It’s easy if you try!

  106. Piett

    Monty,

    Fascism is a coherent political ideology that emerged in the late C19, as a breakaway movement from the international socialism of the day.

    It is not the same as authoritarian conservatism, or with military junta, or with institutional racism, or with international communism. Though it shares some features with all of those, it also has important differences. Kates describes Franco and Salazar as fascists. They were not. Neither is Cuba under Castro, nor the De Klerk government. The only state in the modern world for which you could make an argument for fascism is the DPRK.

    To describe Trump as fascist is laughable. Does he intend to centralise the entire economy under his direction, with every company required to meet his production targets? No? Then not fascist.

    Does Trump argue for expansionary war for its own sake — that America should be gearing up for war with Russia or China, because war strengthens and improves the nation? No? Then not fascist.

    Does Trump intend to suspend democracy — which is fundamentally incompatible with fascist ideology. No? Then …

  107. Spider

    The “ignorant name calling” has achieved the desired outcome whereby even in Australia mentioning that you might grudgingly admire Trump ranks you as a pariah.

    The ridicule associated with Trump is so complete that even complete and utter novices who know zip about American politics reflexively snort in derision at his name.

    The most alarming thing it has given the pathological liar Hilary a free pass as know one even cursorily examines her record at all.

  108. Monty, in the context of the actual ongoing debate on this thread, you know the intent with which you used the quote, and I know the intent with which you used the quote. All your belated back-pedalling now alters that fact not one whit. So knock yourself out – I’ve lost interest.

  109. Roger

    Could India fit into the Anglosphere?

    In the narrow sense of the term, yes, since English is an official language.

    But I suspect the Indians would take exception to the wider application of the term to them for historical and cultural reasons.

    And they rather pride themselves on being “non-aligned” politically. Besides which we’d never trust them with being the “6th eye”.

  110. egg_

    a police state in which opponents of the regime are in peril of their lives and are often imprisoned

    “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
    … maybe the desire to see the painful, thrashing death of one’s opponents is not ideal…”

    Richard Glover
    SMH
    June 6, 2011

  111. rich

    Making individual lefties responsible for their actions, scrutinised without being able to hide behind the “group” or organisation, is a better way.

    I don’t think you can boil it down to individual contribution- you do need groups to fight political battles. A small, elite and organised group can turn the tide due to the “miracle of democracy”… why do you think progressive media campaigns so hard against the NRA?? Because the NRA are a successful, organised pressure group.

    At best a “Progressive” can say, I like your morality and I dislike that guys morality.

    You’re missing the “democracy is mob rule” bit and the “victim poker” bit….
    morality isn’t relative to everything. It is relative to the consent of the conscience of the majority, and how much of an underdog the victim is.

    Statistics or personal accountability be damned. It’s how big your victim badge is:

    Exhibit A (if you see the daily life facebook, where his “victim” badge trumps any reality around the matter)
    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/news-features/duncan-storrar-to-spend-crowdfunding-money-on-childrens-education-toaster-for-charity-20160527-gp5nl5.html

  112. wes george

    If you demonise your political foe by going full Godwin, then you have forfeited the opportunity to understand and thus rationally calibrate your arsenal against them.

    This is one of Trump’s great tactical advantages in this election. The Left has no hope of understanding his appeal because they are blinded by their own ridiculously self-righteous contortions.

    I’ve been struggling to understand the Trump phenomena and have read every thoughtful piece I could find on Trump from the Left to the Right. There are literally no insights into Trump from the Leftist pundits. They are universally baffled and blustered; allowing Trump to goad them into a high school cafeteria food fight – slinging epithets: racist, sexist, misogynist, fascist, hater. All terms rendered meaningless by years of Leftist exploitation.

    On the Right there are three strains of analysis of Trump. All capable of deep insights, although the #nevertrump group is the least sympathetic and the Trumpists themselves are far too smugly zen with letting Trump be Trump to think rationally about the implications of Trump beyond today’s moment of delicious schadenfreude.

    By far the most interesting insights into Trump come from reluctant Trump supporters, Libertarians and other disaffected types who are struggling to grok what America has to do to fix itself. Trump is not the answer, but he is a symptom of something much bigger than himself.

    We need to understand this phenomena.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/retribalizing-america/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tji1g0WrPw

    http://www.scragged.com/articles/boaty-mcboatface-and-the-rise-of-trump

  113. Empire

    They need to take money by force to survive.
    Taking the money away fixes it overnight.
    However, that relies on politicians, and as we have seen with just the ABC, that ain’t gonna happen.

    Politicians may only be relied on to continue stealing increasing amounts of cash.

    Organised disobedience by net taxpayers is the only viable means of starving the beast.

  114. Roger

    If morality (and truth) are relative then it’s impossible for anyone to be morally superior to anyone else. At best a “Progressive” can say, I like your morality and I dislike that guys morality.

    But that itself is a value judgment, albeit one based on an emotional criterion – “liking” – rather than on reason. And behind the “liking” one would find a myriad of unexamined prejudices and assumptions based on the ideology the holder of the judgment was socialised into in their formative years.

    This is why relativism is self-defeating. The trouble is most relativists have not learned to think logically enough to realise that fact.

  115. Makka

    “Just look at some of the unhinged rhetoric employed here about inner city progressives, for example.”

    Hahahahaha.

    If only they would progress down the bowl to be flushed.

  116. Tel

    This is why relativism is self-defeating. The trouble is most relativists have not learned to think logically enough to realise that fact.

    Well absolutism is also self defeating. We don’t even have the tools to convey basic concepts to one another in a reliable and unambiguous manner. Even things like “define murder” cannot be agreed upon in an absolute fashion, and even if we did 100% agree we would still never be sure the other guy fully understood it.

    Just a limitation of the human condition.

    We can of course come up with plausible approximation and by all means call that “absolute” if it cheers you up.

  117. struth

    The Lord was not English. Nice logical fallacy there Struth, pity you can’t argue the facts.

    Bullshit.

    He was on the inside.

    Anyways, quoting the warriors of seventeenth century England, as it battled against one form of tyranny over another was already covered by me.
    I said, if you read back, hard lessons learned, contributed to the success of the Anglosphere.
    Cromwell’s time was part of that, dating way back to the Romans and before.
    Lessons learned.
    From the time of around the end of the American civil war, is when the right culture started to prevail , and the Anglosphere is recognisable as such.
    It was around that time, which coincides roughly with the end of convict transportation here, that the Anglosphere really started to take off.
    That is just my opinion of course, but if you are so ignorant as to try to argue Cromwell’s England was the “Anglosphere” I will put an official start time to it.

  118. cohenite

    If morality (and truth) are relative then it’s impossible for anyone to be morally superior to anyone else.

    That is the core of multiculturalism and Foucaultian relativism. It is the single biggest problem in the West. It enables all sorts of freaks to maintain a claim for disadvantage. It is the left’s stock in trade and the essence of fascism. As a result both repositories of truth, science and law, become ideological.

  119. duncanm

    Hey Jobson..

    what do you think of Mr Chiro being arrested and charged for bad-mouthing Nova? Compare that with the vile language coming out of ‘progressives’ on the Fairfax ladypages like Clem and the way they are treated by the law.

    Sounds a lot like points 1, 2 and 4 to me, regardless of if he’s guilty or innocent.

  120. Organised disobedience by net taxpayers is the only viable means of starving the beast.

    Spot on, Empire. There are two million plus small businesses in Australia. If just 10% of them simply refused to remit PAYG income tax and GST receipts until a list of mutually agreed conditions were met, all this would be over in three months. But it ain’t gonna happen.

  121. Would you say, struth, that Trump will teach the same lessons as Cromwell?

  122. struth

    Must dash….
    Cheerio…
    Toodles.
    Tata.

  123. Makka

    The Leftscum are in full panic mode over Trump. They can’t lay a finger on him.

    Poor fat m0nty is all over this thread, doing his idiotic best trying to stem the Trump tide.

    Keep it up m0nty. All good material for your online La Trobe University Humanities and Political Science in Gender Studies PhD?

  124. As for you Piett, there are other types of fascism than full blown Third Reich Nazism. Your definition is conveniently proscriptive.

  125. struth

    Trump was caused by the Left.
    You guys brought this on yourselves.
    Trump is the response to Cultural Marxism.
    Who knows what policies he will try to get through or not.
    Some people , like me, will risk the other stuff if the only thing standing between your country’s demise because of it , is him.
    Defending the “anglosphere” that mystic culture that you don’t get, that we have tried to teach you all afternoon, is the most important thing.
    It is what creates the wealth in the first place.
    As proven.
    Whatever economic policies are in place, are pointless if cultural Marxism and open borders win.
    They won’t be worth the paper they are written on.
    Now I must go.
    Your lessons for today are finished.

  126. Piett

    If morality (and truth) are relative then it’s impossible for anyone to be morally superior to anyone else.

    That is the core of multiculturalism and Foucaultian relativism. It is the single biggest problem in the West.

    Keep in mind that the most obnoxious political and religious movements are absolutist, not relativist. The Islamic State is not relativist or multicultural. Neither were Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. All of them sincerely believed themselves to be morally superior, and that imagined superiority justified horrendous bloodshed.

    Pluralism and tolerance are essential foundations of Western society. Do we sometimes take those principles too far? Maybe so. It’s still better than going in the opposite direction.

  127. rich

    If you demonise your political foe by going full Godwin, then you have forfeited the opportunity to understand and thus rationally calibrate your arsenal against them… This is one of Trump’s great tactical advantages in this election. The Left has no hope of understanding his appeal because they are blinded by their own ridiculously self-righteous contortions.

    By far the most interesting insights into Trump come from reluctant Trump supporters, Libertarians and other disaffected types who are struggling to grok what America has to do to fix itself. Trump is not the answer, but he is a symptom of something much bigger than himself.

    But that itself is a value judgment, albeit one based on an emotional criterion – “liking” – rather than on reason. And behind the “liking” one would find a myriad of unexamined prejudices and assumptions based on the ideology the holder of the judgment was socialised into in their formative years.

    I have derived value from these insightful comments. It has made me glad to read this thread.

    These are things I knew inwardly but was yet to articulate.

  128. rich

    Pluralism and tolerance are essential foundations of Western society. Do we sometimes take those principles too far? Maybe so

    My uncle from Malaysia said this to me, if the moslems are so sure of their moral superiority, why do they have the death penalty for apostasy?

    Wouldn’t it be better to let the dross and faithless leave their faith, or would such a departure be a conceding of absolute moral superiority, which they believe is derived from their religion? What do they have to fear?

  129. @ Wes George

    I’ve been struggling to understand the Trump phenomena and have read every thoughtful piece I could find on Trump from the Left to the Right.

    Trump may be simply described as a patriot. He has spoken about his patriotism for nearly 30 years and has acted on it for just as long.
    His play book is a whole different kettle of fish to comprehend (boy I struggled with that idiom). For that I found the Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams enlightening.
    http://blog.dilbert.com/ Best to go back and read his blog posts from the start.

  130. cohenite

    Piett

    #2044193, posted on May 31, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    If morality (and truth) are relative then it’s impossible for anyone to be morally superior to anyone else.

    That is the core of multiculturalism and Foucaultian relativism. It is the single biggest problem in the West.

    Keep in mind that the most obnoxious political and religious movements are absolutist, not relativist. The Islamic State is not relativist or multicultural. Neither were Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

    True; let me clarify; these absolute monstrosities are facilitated by relativism. Some values are required to resist the absolutes. The left have emasculated the West. There is a vacuum in the West because the pendulum has swung too far to laisse faire and some nasty applicants are lining up to balance the books.

  131. Trump was caused by the Left.

    Stop, my sides are splitting!! This place is hilarious.

    No, ever since Nixon, the GOP has owned racism and racists in America. Trump comes from a long line… Buchanan, Duke, many others.

  132. egg_

    inner city progressives

    McTyrants?

  133. Fred Lenin

    The destruction of the u.n.communist fascist plan for one world unelected government could be expidited by simply defunding all left influenced organs , unions. Universities ,political cliques ans the media . Tge elimination of the alpbc/sbs commisariat as one person suggested ,firm a p/l company compensate tgem for super and other benefits in shares in the company and leave them to market forces,they can always go on the dole when it collapses ,be a lot cheaoer. Bring in laws that no person can hold office for more than one year ,and no one with criminal coviction can hold office . Theres a start .

  134. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.

    — Justice Learned Hand

  135. stackja

    Many past US presidents would not be elected today. MSM would not like their policies.

  136. Rohan

    cohenite
    #2044066, posted on May 31, 2016 at 11:38 am
    There is no essential difference between fascism and communism.

    One O-week at Uni I made the mistake of walking past the Socialist Alliance. When hassled by one clown, I told them I wasn’t interested in joining, he started screaming that I was a fascist. I then quietly asked him “What’s the difference between fascism and communism?” After no response I replied, “5 million [email protected]$”. All of them were completely impotent and speechless with rage. Which is just as well, cause they were big bastards.

  137. FelixKruell

    Tel:

    An automatic presumption of perfidy should be normal. It isn’t a defining factor of Trump.

    Obama saying one thing before being elected, and another after, is disappointing but not unexpected.

    Trump on the other hand is saying one thing before being elected, and then another (still before being elected), then sometimes staking out a third position. All of which are mutually exclusive. That’s what makes Trump unique (and not in a good way)

  138. cohenite

    Trump on the other hand is saying one thing before being elected, and then another (still before being elected), then sometimes staking out a third position. All of which are mutually exclusive. That’s what makes Trump unique (and not in a good way)

    Examples?

  139. cohenite

    cause they were big bastards.

    And the men are worse.

  140. Makka

    “Obama saying one thing before being elected, and another after, is disappointing but not unexpected.”

    Obama saying one thing before being elected, and doing the opposite another after, is disappointing but not unexpected.

    Obama apologists truly make me sick.

    A POTUS that has gutted the military, engineered a horde of criminal illegals to enter, in one stroke allowed nukes to proliferate into the moslem world, grovelled to one of the nastiest regimes on this planet, who aggressively imposes his will that boys should have access to girls toilets because transgender bullshit, has deliberately incited racial based killings of the nation’s police forces is just “disappointing.”

    Fk off.

  141. Relying on politicians is precisely how we got into this mess in the first place, Struth. Truth is, ordinary Australians could tear the whole sick edifice down in six to twelve weeks, if enough of them wanted to. Without protest marches, violence or anything else. Trouble is, not enough people care.

    People won’t care until it is too late and the remaining options by then, well, they won’t even be options. This election is a good example; Tweedledum or Tweedledee. The notion we are punishing them by booting them is a bit silly though. They won’t be punished in any way, they will lose their seats and get picked up by Boards or shunted into public service sinecures, all for access to their rolodex. In fact many of them will be doing a lot less work for more money and be out of the spotlight, what’s not to like? That little shit Wyatt Roy will never have to get a proper job in his entire life, even Lambie and Muir will end up somewhere on the teat. Don’t get me wrong, I am still WDM’ing in the Reps if only for the small chance that we might end up with someone better in the future (and that is still a forlorn hope).

  142. The notion we are punishing them by booting them is a bit silly though.
    They won’t be punished in any way . . .

    Too true Rusty. As I outlined at 1.17pm, there is a fairly simple solution, it just won’t happen.

  143. FelixKruell

    cohenite:

    Example…

    Immigration
    Tax
    Abortion
    Iran deal
    ISIS
    Obamacare

    That’s just for starters…google ‘Trump views on [x]’ and when try and reconcile his various statements on most topics.

  144. Empire

    No, ever since Nixon, the GOP has owned racism and racists in America. Trump comes from a long line… Buchanan, Duke, many others.

    How much did Nixon pay the southern Democrats for their vile racism? Why has this never been made public?

    Come on Monty – channel The Alamo.

  145. Robert Crew

    google ‘Trump views on [x]’ and when try and reconcile his various statements on most topics.

    There’s your problem right there. I tried that back in October and quickly found nobody could agree on what Trump actually said, so I started actually listening to the speeches the reports were based on. That’s when I discovered that virtually everything said of Trump’s views either mistaken or outright deception.

    To use a relatively recent example: the media take some general comment like “Ya gotta take ’em out folks” and spin that into the completely false allegation that “Trump will order US soldiers to murder the families of terrorists”, or “Trump will withdraw from the Geneva convention”, or whatever else they imagine he might have meant. When he later clarifies that of course that’s not what he meant , it’s spun as a humiliating backdown. The #NeverTrump crowd at National Review are the worst for this.

    You will not learn anything useful about what Trump is saying unless you actually listen to what he is saying – in the US, Fox has been playing his speeches live, which is how so many people have tuned in to what he is really saying.

  146. FelixKruell

    Robert Crew:

    I’m talking about his speeches and direct quotes – not reports or summaries. Try and reconcile his statements on the same topics a few months apart. The inconsistencies are startling, and suggest he is telling the audience what they want to hear at any given time. Very hard to figure out from that what his actual intentions are.

    Ask yourself – what is Trump’s policy on tax? On immigration?

  147. jupes

    On immigration?

    Open borders?

  148. cohenite

    That’s when I discovered that virtually everything said of Trump’s views either mistaken or outright deception.

    Correct. The msm has lied outright about the T. I looked at what was said about his views on abortion, in particular about a Judgment given by his sister and how that supposedly reflected the T’s views. The sister’s Judgment had been misrepresented and the extrapolation to the T was bullshit. Same with his supposed bankruptcies; just bullshit. Anyone who says the man is inconsistent give an example or piss off.

    The T has spoken truth about islam, alarmism, what Obama has done to the US and the West and the media and that is light-years more than any other shithead politician has done ever.

  149. Robert Crew

    Felix, I’m going to need a specific example first – just one will do, I’ve been down this rabbit hole too many times chasing these fictional representations of what Trump did or didn’t say that should disqualify him, and there hasn’t been an honest one yet.

    Go ahead, give me your best example – the one that in your mind should kill his chances forever – and I’ll go back down the rabbit hole for you and come back here once I’ve found the truth of the matter. Also, to save me from having to also research your statements too, are you broadly attacking Trump from the right or the left?

  150. srr

    Fascists campaign for fascists.

    All you need to know about the Anti-Trumpers is that they’re on the pork and gravy train For Fascists and will do whatever it take to stop anyone trying to stop it.

    Still Report #906 – Huff Post Disappears Clinton Indictment Story

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH5CvN1KwPo

    30 May 2016
    The Huffington Post has disappeared its earlier story claiming that Hillary Clinton will be indicted for racketeering upon recommendations from the FBI.

    We posted the story at 08:49 this morning. Eighteen minutes later, one of the friends of this channel reported that the story had disappeared from the Huffington Post site.

    According to Breitbart, the original article link:

    “…now directs to a page that says “404” with a frownie face and the message ‘This is so embarrassing’ after Huffington Post took the piece down Sunday.”

    Breitbart tried to contact the Huffington Post’s media team and their senior politics editor, Sam Stein without success.

    However, as of this hour, 14:30 EDT, you’ll be relieved to know that the Huff Post has replaced this morning’s critical Hillary piece with these 4 gems which pretty much set what today’s theme was supposed to be about before a real story accidentally bypassed the filters.

    #1 Flashback:

    “The Life Advice Hillary Clinton Thinks About Every Day”

    That’s exactly what kept me awake last night!
    #2:

    “Dodgin’ Donald’s Hiding Something in Those Unreleased Tax Returns”

    Well, Mr. Trump is under no legal obligation to release his tax returns and we hope he will announce tomorrow morning that he had decided to not release them. Because there is no sense in giving Clinton the only ammunition she can possibly lay her hands on to counter the steady stream of scandals coming her way between now and November.
    Story #3:

    America’s Seniors Can Count on Hillary Clinton.

    Wow, what a page-turner this will be.
    Story #4:

    Crybaby-in-Chief: Trump Just Can’t Stop Whining.

    Hmmm, Clinton stands accused of treason, racketeering and perjury – with an option on who-knows-what; and their counter is Trump is a CryBaby???
    Is that really the best they can do? Really?

    I’m still reporting from Washington. Good day.
    ___
    Still Report #907 – HuffPo Writer & Editor – Don’t Know Why Story Was Pulled

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtbicZubplk

    30 May 2016
    Good Memorial Day evening, I’m still reporting on the LSM – the left-stream or lame-stream media.

    According to a Breitbart update today regarding the HuffPost story on Hillary Clinton’s imminent indictment that suddenly disappeared off their website around 9am this morning – neither the author of the piece, Frank Huguenard, nor the senior Politics editor for the webazine know why the story was pulled.

    This latest Breitbart story puts to rest by implication the rumor that the story, itself, was a forgery. According to author Huguenard:
    “Huffpo has yet to respond to my request for an explanation”
    of why the story was suddenly pulled.
    Although the piece was not sourced, the allegations were so explosive – namely that Hillary Clinton positively would be indicted on federal racketeering charges – that many news organizations would run with it with minimal sourcing.

    However Huguenard tweeted Breitbart News reporter Patrick Howley this morning that he does have sources for the dramatic revelation:

    “I’ve got my sources, they never asked.”

    Huguenard later told Breitbart:

    “I want to do another story but my HuffPo account has been temporarily disabled. Not sure what’s happening with them.”

    Also today, Huffington Post Politics senior editor Sam Stein also confirmed the legitimacy of the Clinton indictment story by acknowledging that the piece was pulled by unknown persons.

    “Sorry. I don’t know [who pulled it]. I’d direct your question to a blog editor.”

    Stein said.

    But Stein – perhaps sensing that the corporate long knives may be out looking for some scapegoat – any scapegoat – declined to provide the name or contact info for that blog editor.

    So now, the question becomes; who ordered the piece removed – obviously for partisan reasons – and then who is sufficiently skilled in the dark arts to then deliberately circulate the rumor that the piece was a totally forgery which must have been posted on the HuffPo site by means of a malicious intrusion?

    Creating fake evidence of a malicious intrusion – a bold cover-up – could easily backfire on its creator and move from getting caught with one’s hand in the electronic cookie jar, so to say, to serious criminal behavior which leaves abundant electronic fingerprints.

    In other words, the chances of posting a fake story on the HuffPo site are near zero, and therefore the chances of this rumor being a part of a sophisticated disinformation operation are very high.
    Time will tell if Huguenard’s sources were legit. That will take care of itself.

    The most promising aspect for good reporters wanting to catch the next good story would be to dig into the source of the “fake story” rumor.

    As we have recently seen, it’s easy to create fake Twitter accounts to distribute malicious rumors, but it’s a dangerous game for the uninitiated because Twitter, the corporation, takes a dim view of this behavior, and is more than happy to seek out the truth and punish violators of their terms of service.

    What most likely happened is that Hillary Clinton got on the horn with Arianna Huffington, who runs the HuffPO as a subsidiary AOL – and blasted her. Huffington then called whoever was working in the IT Dept. on this holiday Sunday morning and ordered them to spike Huguenard’s and regulations be damned.

    Tomorrow morning, the HuffPo bigwigs will have to meet with their big bosses at AOL and try to figure out the best half-truth to put out in a press release in an attempt to explain all this without revealing the actual truth – that HuffPo is a captive of the Clinton campaign.

    I’m still reporting from Washington. Good day.

  151. I’ll go back down the rabbit hole for you and come
    back here once I’ve found the truth of the matter.

    Not worth your effort, Robert. There are people here revel in getting others to use their time this way. Once you get back with a refutation, Felix will be busy goading somebody else into wasting their time and effort on a completely different subject. I call them “slitherers”.

  152. JC

    USSR

    You’ve gotta stop it with the endless comments. Flicking down the page is really annoying.

    Get your own blog and post links here to the endless stream of babble.

    Good idea, no?

  153. FelixKruell

    Robert Crew:

    Felix, I’m going to need a specific example first – just one will do

    Let’s make it tax then. What is Trump’s tax plan? He has floated a ‘Fair Tax’. He has floated a ‘Flat Tax’. He has floated reducing deductions and using that to lower the rates. And best of all, he then said:

    “I know exactly what I want to do, I just don’t want to announce it yet.”

    So to sum up, everything is on the table (a la Turnbull), but he’s not telling us his plan.

    As for which direction I’m attacking Trump from – not sure it’s relevant, because I can’t figure out where Trump stands on so many things.

  154. IainC

    Communism is the extreme left of the extreme left.

    Fascism is the extreme right of the extreme left.

  155. FelixKruell

    Memoryvault:

    Felix will be busy goading somebody else into wasting their time

    Don’t you find it a tad strange that you would have to do heaps of research to determine Trump’s position on basic policies? They should be set in stone by now, repeated ad nauseum by Trump, so that you can reel them off without even thinking…

  156. struth

    Stop, my sides are splitting!! This place is hilarious.

    No, ever since Nixon, the GOP has owned racism and racists in America. Trump comes from a long line… Buchanan, Duke, many others.

    A left wing proclamation is no good anymore Monty.
    Look at what you just said.
    Nothing.
    You threw some mud.
    It is exactly that type of bullshit that caused Trump.
    Because you say it, don’t make it so.
    I am from the scientific side of politics, not the left.
    There are things called scientific and historical facts.
    Like Hitler being a socialist, and you being an idiot.

  157. Robert Crew

    memoryvault, I’m hoping he’ll come back with one of the usual canards, of the type favoured by HuffPo. Those can be refuted without any real effort, but if he does come up with a new one it’ll give me an excuse to watch some of the more recent speeches – I haven’t kept up since Wisconsin. When he says he’s referring to the actual speeches I know he’s lying – at best he’s got some out-of-context quotes from the Guardian or the like that he will claim are accurate and fairly represent what was said. With any luck I’ve sent him down the rabbit hole and he’ll resurface as a Trumpkin.

  158. struth

    Extreme right wing is anarchy.
    No government.
    The more top down control, the more it is left wing.
    Fascism is totally left wing.
    There is nothing free market, free trade, minimal government, low taxation about it.
    Nationalism is not fascism.
    In a democracy, it’s a desire by people of the same culture and language and history to govern themselves.
    That’s critical to democracy.
    No border, no democracy.

  159. Robert Crew

    Felix, listening to speeches takes time, time I’m only willing to put in if you give me one specific thing to debunk.

  160. Snoopy

    Let’s make it tax then. What is Trump’s tax plan?

    Trump said he was going to abolish the IRS. What a doofus.

  161. gabrianga

    The bastions of the Left Wing print media NYT, Guardian, Fairfax’s AGE and SMH desperately sinking surely. ?

    Never in the field political journalism was so much pap written by by so few and swallowed by so many.

    Slowly but surely we are reaching near 100% of “news” being supplanted by” comment “gleaned from “social” media sources and Press Releases stuffed into the boxes of journalists near 24/7

    No changes expected, especially in Australia, where our ex Communications Minister never laid a glove on Australian media and in fact praised some of the more Left Wing sources.

  162. Snoopy

    Oh wait! That was Honest Ted.

  163. Menai Pete

    Interesting that in all of the discussions about the march through the institutions, safe schools and indoctrinated university graduates no one has used the term radicalised youth because that is what they are creating. The term is not restricted to followers of the prophet.

  164. Don’t you find it a tad strange that you would have to do heaps of research to determine Trump’s position on basic policies?

    No I don’t, Felix, for the following reasons:
    1) – The American Presidential election campaign hasn’t even started yet.
    2) – The “other side” hasn’t even settled on a candidate yet.
    3) – It isn’t true anyway – see (4) below.
    4) – Where he basically stands on most things is pretty comprehensively covered on his website.

  165. FelixKruell

    Robert Crew:

    Felix, listening to speeches takes time, time I’m only willing to put in if you give me one specific thing to debunk.

    I just did – tax. What is his policy? I’ve given you 4 of his stated policies (or at least his wish list). Try his August 11 speech where he covers about 3 of these in one speech.

    But also consider – why do you need to listen to his speeches again? Don’t you know his tax policies? If you don’t, how can you possible support him?

  166. Struth, you couldn’t be more comical if you tried. You said God was an Englishman! What a poltroon.

  167. Makka

    Don’t you know his tax policies? If you don’t, how can you possible support him?

    Without checking, Felix, tell us quickly what are Hillary’s and Bernie’s tax policies.

  168. Robert Crew

    Felix, you answered your own question, if he’s said he’s not releasing his plan yet, I’m not going to be able to discern it. There’s nothing for me to debunk. Let’s go back to your original statement

    If you take him at (some of) his word, much of what he intends to do would indeed be scary.

    What specifically has he said that has scared you. What specific policy or proposal would be so scary?

  169. I just did – tax. What is his policy?

    Cut and paste from the website –

    Tax Reform That Will Make America Great Again
    The Goals Of Donald J. Trump’s Tax Plan

    Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:

    1) – Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.
    2) – Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.
    3) – Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.
    4) – Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

    More detail here.

  170. John Constantine

    Shorten says western Sydney is the new heart of Australia.

    The throb of doom pulsing in the septic gloom of melbournibad must be owned so completely by the short filth that he can rely on no paper running that as a headline in the sprawling shantytowns of the South.

  171. FelixKruell

    Memoryvault:

    Cut and paste from the website –

    Now compare that to his speech from August 11. Notice the differences? That’s my point.

  172. FelixKruell

    Makka:

    Without checking, Felix, tell us quickly what are Hillary’s and Bernie’s tax policies.

    No idea. I can take a guess, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t support them.

  173. Makka

    “No idea. I can take a guess, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t support them.”

    Felix,

    I thought so. You are clueless. You don’t seem to realise that Trump’s popularity stems from him being the best option to defeat the left. People that support Trump will live with his economic and other policies, mainly because the US is adept enough to get over any problematic ones. However, taking back the nation from Leftist Govt and a putrid media matters to many people and Trump has convinced them he can do it. That is the reason for Trump’s popularity such as it is – he’s verbalising what many people have been thinking about their country and their Govt for years and now they have him as their rallying point.

  174. Now compare that to his speech from August 11. Notice the differences? That’s my point.

    Nah, Felix. You TELL me the differences (summarise), and we’ll take it from there. But just for clarification, first confirm that you’re referring to a speech from nearly a year ago, months before even the primaries started? A speech made not two months after he first announced a run for Presidency? Jeez, I’d have hoped like hell that he had modified and clarified his stance over that period of time.

    You never know, Felix. It could mean he’s actually been listening to people. What a novel idea for a wannabe politician.

  175. Robert Crew

    I agree memoryvault, it’s up to Felix to make a case before I can rebut it -I’m certainly not going to try guessing what his strawman will be.

  176. wes george

    Piett

    #2044193, posted on May 31, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    If morality (and truth) are relative then it’s impossible for anyone to be morally superior to anyone else.

    That is the core of multiculturalism and Foucaultian relativism. It is the single biggest problem in the West.

    Keep in mind that the most obnoxious political and religious movements are absolutist, not relativist. The Islamic State is not relativist or multicultural. Neither were Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

    Evidence is that ALL moral and cultural values are absolutely relative! Neither God nor the Planet give a damn how we organise our societies or whether we go extinct or expand to colonise the solar system. The whole human race could revert to bloody cannibals living in a socialist paradise based upon human sacrifice and gay marriage and there wouldn’t be so much as a cricket chirp from heaven.

    There are NO moral values that were handed down to humanity through “revelation” by a God. Moral relativity is no different then evolution or quantum physics. It’s not a Leftist value system, it part of a scientific materialism based upon the evidence thus far. Of course, I shall update my evidence-based opinion accordingly should Jesus show up tomorrow for the Second Coming.

    True, the Left have appropriated moral relativism to their advantage. And we’re the mugs who let ’em get away with it!

    Now it’s time we made the bastards play by what they imagine is their own rules. For instance, almost all Leftist economic theory is faith-based upon out-dated, discredited Keynesian and Marxist dogma, endless repeated class warfare mantra they imagine is an absolute moral truth. Much of environmentalism is simply post-Christian evangelical millenarianism in Gaia drag. These wankers don’t have any moral high ground if truth is relative, ie relative to the rules of rational inquiry.

    If all truth is relative, then the only way to know what sort of policies a Western society should live by is to compile the evidence and test policy directly against outcome. All conservative and libertarian values I am aware of would crush collectivist and Islamic faith-based values in a rational inquiry into the utilitarian outcome. Hey, roll out the computer modelling! You guys should take Alinsky seriously.

    To imagine that any kind of cultural value can ever be absolutely universal is to confer legitimacy upon faith-based, revelation-based dogmas and liturgies none of which are compatible with conservative libertarian conceptions of individual human rights, free market theory, rational inquiry and limited government. To say our Western values are universally encoded, is to allow revelation based knowledge systems to trump rational argument. Why can’t an Islamist claim he has the absolute word of God in his Koran? Or a socialist demand we take Das Capital seriously?

    Instead we should say OK, fine. You have the word of God, or Tim Flannery’s climate forecasts for Perth as your absolutely self-righteous moral conceit. How is that working out for you? 🙂 Ummm. No thanks, mate. I think we’ll stick to the evidence-based program for awhile longer.

    I’m fine with constantly testing Western values with all comers. Totally relative like, dude. Bring it on. May the “most useful” values rule. Lefties, from Honest Bill to Julia Gillard always play the morally indignant card in every policy debate and conservative mugs want to legitimise this con game by signing off on the idea of moral absolutes? No way, don’t play their game. Grow some nads and trust your Western Civ Enlightenment values will stand head and shoulders above the rest in free and open scrutiny because, well, they already have… Demand the evidence be transparently tested in the court of public opinion.

    Tell ’em it’s all bloody relative, mate!

  177. Felix Kruell

    I’ve already summarised how Trumps August 2015 tax policy is inconsistent with the one currently on his website. But that’s apparently too long ago to count. So let’s pick something more recent. May 2016.

    Trump released a tax proposal last September that included broad tax breaks for businesses and households. He proposed reducing the highest income tax rate to 25 percent from the current 39.6 percent rate.

    Pressed on the contradiction between his latest comments on taxes and the September tax plan, Trump said he viewed his original proposal as “a concept” and that he expected it would be changed following negotiations with Congress.

    “By the time it gets negotiated, it’s going to be a different plan,” Trump told ABC. He emphasized in separate interviews with ABC and NBC’s “Meet the Press” that his priorities were lowering taxes on the middle class and businesses.

    “The middle class has to be protected,” Trump told NBC. The rich are “probably going to end up paying more,” he said.

    So you’re supporting a candidate who wants to increase taxes on the rich? (Or maybe not..depends which of his statements you believe. My whole point).

  178. Fisky

    Don’t you know his tax policies? If you don’t, how can you possible support him?

    Who fucking cares what his tax policies are? The Left want to replace the voters with ring-ins from third world countries so that they can never be thrown out of office. Only Trump seems to grasp that this is a much greater threat than having your tax and regulatory regime out of kilter by a percentage or two of GDP.

  179. Fisky

    Look at Venezuela. It’s a great lesson in how the Left want things to work. A Far Left government is literally destroying the country. There have been about 4 elections since it became manifestly clear what they were doing. But there simply weren’t enough voters stop them. The “blondes” are a minority in Venezuela, and the “browns” have the votes (their terminology, not mine). So the “browns” kept voting for their stupid monkey Chavez and his rather dim sockpuppet Maduro, and now they have run out of food. But they will keep their dumbass socialist dictator indefinitely because fairness.

    This is what the Left want for every first world country.

  180. herodotus

    It was a nice, tidy little thread until along came Monty Scrollpast.

  181. Tel

    So the “browns” kept voting for their stupid monkey Chavez and his rather dim sockpuppet Maduro, and now they have run out of food. But they will keep their dumbass socialist dictator indefinitely because fairness

    Not indefinitely… things that just can’t continue, won’t continue.

    Either some foreign aid kicks in with free food, or it will get kind of ugly. If you want to farm, raise animals, etc then some basic property rights are fundamental. No food, no population… simple.

    Very hard to help them, when anyone getting involved will also get blamed… and the more you help, the more the socialists can justify what they are doing… but Europe seems to have a lot of milk right now.

  182. Felix Kruell

    Fisky:

    fine, lets move on to immigration. What’s Trump’s policy? No more Muslims? Ever? Or just temporary? Are we deporting all illegals, some, or none? All of these have been Trump’s position at one point or another.

  183. herodotus

    Felix, the ALP has had more positions than the Kama Sutra re border control, but that never phases their media boosters or troll herds.

  184. Trump’s tax policies would cut a trillion or more in revenues, and that is after dynamic scoring. He has promised not to cut services, only to cut waste. Remind you of anyone? He is basically Abbott on domestic fiscal policy: a bunch of lies that only credulous fools would believe. He would blow out the deficit like Abbott did. So much for conservatism.

  185. Fisky

    fine, lets move on to immigration. What’s Trump’s policy?

    It doesn’t matter. Policies before elections typically bear scarce resemblance to what happens after elections. Trump is upfront about that. We know enough about Trump’s disposition to make a judgment. And his negotiating hand will be pretty strong if he wins.

  186. Fisky

    By contrast, the ALP have a very clear policy on immigration. They debated it for months and put it on their platform.

    But as a matter of fact, we don’t actually know what they are really going to be like in government, do we? There is a great air of unease about them and we all know why.

    We don’t have that with Trump because we know exactly which direction he is headed, the final destination to be decided through negotiation.

  187. Snoopy

    How come the New York Times missed these modern-day global fascists? Something of an oversight, eh?

  188. What do you think he would actually get accomplished, Fisky? Let’s say he had a Republican Congress behind him

  189. Oh dear Snoopy, you obviously forgot that Trump gets his all white crowds at his rallies to raise their right hands and pledge to vote for him. How embarrassing for you.

  190. Fisky

    Probably reduce legal immigration, speed up deportations, build an Israeli style barrier rather than a wall, negotiate more firmly with China/Russia, and remove a bunch of enviro regulations.

    So long as he is flexible, I think he’ll do fine.

  191. Fisky

    The problem at the moment is not Mexican illegal immigration, but from further South. If Trump can get Mexico to build a Trump Wall on their southern border (which is much narrower down there) it will be more effective, and they probably want to do that anyhow.

  192. Tel

    He would blow out the deficit like Abbott did. So much for conservatism.

    Not to let facts interfere too much with your buffoonery, but the deficit blow out happened in 2010 under the ALP.

    The Liberals have (very mildly) improved matters. The figures in 2013 are jiggered because the ALP pulled money out of the RBA and then right after the election that money needed to be paid back (NOTE the RBA report came out carefully moved to after the election that year).

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-budget

    Anyhow the trend line is pretty clear, blow out in 2010 and graual improvement thereafter.

  193. stackja

    Snoopy
    #2044591, posted on May 31, 2016 at 7:58 pm
    How come the New York Times missed these modern-day global fascists? Something of an oversight, eh?

    “these modern-day global fascists” create fear.

  194. Do you think he would:

    – slap tariffs on China?
    – repeal Obamacare?
    – cut welfare spending?
    – slash funding for foreign military bases?
    – defund NATO and withdraw from European military ties?
    – renegotiate the Iran deal?
    – do anything about Roe v Wade or Obergefell?

  195. Felix Kruell

    Herodotus- why is this about the ALP all of a sudden? I’m pretty sure I know what the ALP will do if they get back in, that’s why I have no intention of voting for them.

    I have no idea what Trump will do. He’s all over the place on the big picture, not just the detail. He’s got people pining for Romney!

  196. Anyhow the trend line is pretty clear, blow out in 2010 and graual improvement thereafter.

    The trend is a blowout caused by Dubbya’s GFC which had been reined in by 2012, only for Abbott to piss money up against the wall for the entirety of his term, which Turnbull has done nothing to fix.

    This is common wisdom at the Cat, Tel. Abbott and Turnbull have doubled the debt. No one here is going to defend them any more. They stuffed up.

  197. Tel

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/graffiti-artist-danielle-bremner-slips-police-net-as-jim-clay-harper-jailed-20160531-gp8cnm.html

    I have mixed feelings about grafitti, it’s really a type of free speech and therefore should be supported, and if screws around with the State because it makes them feel powerless. So far so good. Now the bad side: OK, you have your free speech so do something with it… what do grafitti artists do? They write their names over everything. Hmmm, that’s just fantastic, can you think of something better than that?

    The picture they show with the word “Ether” in white lettering and black outline looks like total shit. Yes, if you are reading this I really do think your work looks like garbage… you have utterly wasted your own freedom and those of others around you.

    As for the police, we have terrorists in this country, head choppers, shotgun jockeys, and the like. Those are the things police resources should go into. We also have serious crimes like theft of confidential documents from the NBN… and thuggery from various unions, catch those bastards first.

  198. Tel

    The trend is a blowout caused by Dubbya’s GFC which had been reined in by 2012,

    Name any aspect of government spending that was reigned in, hmmmm?

  199. Fisky

    – slap tariffs on China? Maybe. Probably requires Congress. So maybe not.
    – repeal Obamacare? I think he’ll keep the essentials.
    – cut welfare spending? No. He hasn’t even promised to do so.
    – slash funding for foreign military bases? Probably.
    – defund NATO and withdraw from European military ties? Depends what they offer him not to.
    – renegotiate the Iran deal? No, because they will already have all the $$$. Thanks, Obama.
    – do anything about Roe v Wade or Obergefell? The evangelicals are the biggest bunch of losers on the entire planet. Their stupid “litmus tests” are a dead letter, and their influence is now zero. They will, however, enjoy being Trump’s bitches, and they will like it.

  200. Fisky

    – slap tariffs on China? Maybe. Probably requires Congress. So maybe not.
    – repeal Obamacare? I think he’ll keep the essentials.
    – cut welfare spending? No. He hasn’t even promised to do so.
    – slash funding for foreign military bases? Probably.
    – defund NATO and withdraw from European military ties? Depends what they offer him not to.
    – renegotiate the Iran deal? No, because they will already have all the $$$. Thanks, Obama.
    – do anything about Roe v Wade or Obergefell? The evangelicals are the biggest bunch of losers on the entire planet. Their stupid “litmus tests” are a dead letter, and their influence is now zero. They will, however, enjoy being Trump’s bitches, and they will like it.

  201. Sounds like you don’t think he will get much done, Fisky.

    I think if he had both houses behind him, he could be an even worse president than Dubbya. And that is a very difficult achievement in itself.

  202. cohenite

    wes george

    #2044522, posted on May 31, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    Wes, it’s a value judgment that multiculturalism forbids, whereby values are ranked; Western secular society is better than fundamentalist societies of either a religious form or ideological type. But more then that I think Western secular society is a process which accommodates a variety of values compared with other stricter societies which have little or no pluralism. The issue is whether tolerant Western process has limitations whereby values come in and not only do not fit into the process or social structure but actively seek to destroy it, islam for instance.

    So rather than think of absolutes think of a value hierarchy where comparisons are valid. That right to compare has been prevented by the pernicious left influence.

  203. wes george

    I have mixed feelings about grafitti, it’s really a type of free speech and therefore should be supported, and if screws around with the State because it makes them feel powerless. So far so good.

    So Tel, mate, you won’t mind if I paint anti-Labor graffiti on your car or house because it’s my bloody god given right to free speech? Oh, yeah, and it makes the state feel powerless. Cool. Pass the bong, dude.

    Mind if I tattoo my tag on your bald head? Because free speech.

    Btw, who knew the state had feelings?

  204. Snoopy

    Oh dear Snoopy, you obviously forgot that Trump gets his all white crowds at his rallies to raise their right hands and pledge to vote for him. How embarrassing for you.

    Raising your right hand is fascist? Who knew classrooms and public meetings were hotbeds of fascism?

    FMD, I would have thought that defending the fascism of Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood and the PLO was a bridge too far even for you. Obviously not. Let’s not forget where Arab fascism started.

    Thank you for confirming the love that the socialist left have for fascism.

  205. Snoopy

    And Trump’s crowds aren’t all white. You’re confusing them with the crowds of that old commo, Bernie.

  206. fine, lets move on to immigration. What’s Trump’s policy? No more Muslims? Ever? Or just temporary?

    Trump – Immigration Reform – from the website.

    Felix, I’m getting fvcking tired of this game.
    You’ve been given the link to Trump’s website twice now.
    Use it or fvck off. But before you go, tell us what Australia’s immigration policy will be in 2050.

  207. C.L.

    Same old same old.
    Every presidential election of modern times features a left-wing astro-turf outrage movement whose purpose is to instill in the electorate’s mind the idea that the Republican candidate is a ‘fascist’ who is a Divisive Figure. Their evidence for his divisiveness, of course, is their own outrage.
    Also a tradition, pissant Australian journalists meticulously ignore the endless, vicious violence of the Democrat-aligned outrage movement, just as they ignored the many murders and rapes committed by Occupy Wall Streeters. Here’s the thing, though: their lies and cover-ups are now so colossal that they’re only serving to bolster Trump. The more he calls journalists scum and garbage the more they prove his point. The old tricks are just not working anymore.

  208. Des Deskperson

    ‘The picture they show with the word “Ether” in white lettering and black outline looks like total shit. ‘

    Tel, not only crap but totally unoriginal. Apart from the hideous, sub-cerebral ‘tags’, most of the Graffiti in Australia follows this same format of blockish, shaded letters and has done so for forty years, so stylised and conformist that it might all have been done by the same very energetic – and now considerably aged – but utterly untalented, err, artist.

  209. Fisky

    m0nty, you need to stop concern trolling. No one gives a shit.

  210. C.L.

    I’ve perused the thread and I discern a deep fear in Monty that his beloved candidate – sick and bent old bag, Hillary – is going down in flames.

  211. C.L.

    Seriously, Monty.
    What the hell were you thinking?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovYnLL9Yow

  212. wes george

    So rather than think of absolutes think of a value hierarchy where comparisons are valid. That right to compare has been prevented by the pernicious left influence.

    Exactly, Cohenite. The Left wants it both ways. They use the relativity of cultural values to say Western values are no more pre-ordained than any other culture’s values. OK, fine. Then they turn around and claim their collectivist, multiculti, social justice values are absolutely sacrosanct, above scrutiny, thus only they possess transcendent moral authority as if Marx was Moses.

    Of course, you can’t have it both ways. Fact is there is no evidence that Western values are laws of nature or were revealed by God. Nor does any other culture occupy a special moral high ground.

    How does one go about deciding good policy if there are no absolute truths? Through a rational and transparent investigation of the evidence. As you say the Left won’t allow this, even in purely science-based affairs such as climatology and economics. Why? Because they claim a higher faith-based moral authority which transcends merely conducting an unbiased rational survey of the evidence to arrive at the best policy. The left is really a kind of secular fundamentalist faith based upon a lot of tosh values which are relatively no more moral than any other set of values and a whole hell of a lot less rational then ours.

    For instance, the Green hold sacrosanct that we should welcome people arriving on boats. Evidence that this kills one in twenty who risk the trip as well as helps bankroll a people trafficking industry in sex slavery, etc. in Asia have no effect upon the Green’s dogma, because it is a faith-based value immune to rational debate. It’s an absolute truth in the Green religion. Doesn’t matter that it kills and enslaves.

    So not only is it a logical fallacy to imagine our libertarian and conservative Western values are written in stone somewhere in Plato’s cave, it really hurts our argument by conferring respect upon the very idea that someone somewhere might have a code of conduct that is above rational analysis for its effectiveness in human affairs.

    Hey, it’s why you hear Lefty philosophy department academics decry logic-based rational inquiry processes as unjust tools of the white patriarchal hegemony. They know their junk morality is toast if scrutinised in a reason-based process.

  213. Fisky

    I’ve perused the thread and I discern a deep fear in Monty that his beloved candidate – sick and bent old bag, Hillary – is going down in flames.

    It’s true! That’s why m0nster has already flicked to “Oh well, Trump won’t do anything” mode.

    Sad!

  214. C.L.

    For instance, the Green hold sacrosanct that we should welcome people arriving on boats. Evidence that this kills one in twenty who risk the trip as well as helps bankroll a people trafficking industry in sex slavery, etc. in Asia have no effect upon the Green’s dogma, because it is a faith-based value immune to rational debate. It’s an absolute truth in the Green religion. Doesn’t matter that it kills and enslaves.

    Yes, but I will say this about the safety argument: it’s polemically expedient bullshit.
    What we now routinely see written and hear said in Australia from OSB defenders (in whose number I count myself) is that controlling our borders is – preponderantly – a humanitarian imperative. This is actually a mistake, long-term, even if it is a killer argument for the short-term marginalisation and rebuttal of open border loonies. The truth is we don’t want borders madly open to boat arrivals because the passengers are Muslims and their effect on Australian culture and liberty is uncomplicatedly negative. If tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Syrian Christians were trying to get here annually, I’d want them met at sea and escorted to the nearest citizenship ceremony.

  215. Fisky

    Yes, but I will say this about the safety argument: it’s polemically expedient bullshit.
    What we now routinely see written and hear said in Australia from OSB defenders (in whose number I count myself) is that controlling our borders is – preponderantly – a humanitarian imperative.

    It was a good enough argument to get us through the crucial few years of Obama/Rudd rockstardom. From 2016 onward, it will be enough to simply say “Yeah, nah, we don’t want to do what Germany did.”

  216. Fisky

    If tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Syrian Christians were trying to get here annually, I’d want them met at sea and escorted to the nearest citizenship ceremony.

    I would be only too delighted to open the floodgates to every last Egyptian Copt, Syrian Christian, Iraqi Christian, Iranian Jew, etc etc. And then to stack them all in marginal Labor electorates where the rent is cheap. That’s why – it’s much cheaper in terms of land/rent etc for them to live in marginal Labor electorates so we must put 1,000,000 of them there at once – no other reason.

  217. Fisky

    If tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Syrian Christians were trying to get here annually, I’d want them met at sea and escorted to the nearest citizenship ceremony.

    I would be only too delighted to open the floodgates to every last Egyptian Copt, Syrian Christian, Iraqi Christian, Iranian J3w, etc etc. And then to stack them all in marginal Labor electorates where the rent is cheap. That’s why – it’s much cheaper in terms of land/rent etc for them to live in marginal Labor electorates so we must put 1,000,000 of them there at once – no other reason.

  218. Fisky, your meta concern trolling is noted and filed appropriately. I am not sure how stating that I think Trump could be the worst president ever is concern trolling. I genuinely think that.

    But hey, it’s May when the polls are traditionally at their least predictive, so let’s let the liberty stripshow roll on. This window of opportunity to consider a reality where Trump doesn’t get trounced will close shortly. Hillary will wrap up the nomination next month, the Bernistas will flock to her like the PUMAs flocked to Obama, and the last vestiges of the Grand Old Party will be scattered to the four winds. Glorious.

  219. wes george

    The truth is we don’t want borders madly open to boat arrivals because the passengers are Muslims and their effect on Australian culture and liberty is uncomplicatedly negative. If tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Syrian Christians were trying to get here annually, I’d want them met at sea and escorted to the nearest citizenship ceremony.

    My point is that even when appealing to humanitarian compassion logic upon which you might reasonable imagine the Green immigration policy is built upon, you’ll get no traction. Because the Greens believe their open borders brand of compassion is a moral absolute beyond rational scrutiny which makes them more virtuous then mere mugs who think lives lost at sea matter. And, a bit like you, the Greens believe the people die argument is merely a polemically expedient bullshit cover for racism.

    Of course, ~2000 people drowning in terrifying conditions largely abetted by an Australian government merely to signal its superior moral virtue over the Howard years is not polemic bullshit. It’s the greatest ethical failure – actually a possible crime against humanity that needs further investigation – of any Australian government in many decades. And we should never, never let the Greens live that down. Make ’em play by their own rules. If Abbott or Howard policy drowned thousands at sea, do you think the Greens and Labor wouldn’t demand Liberal heads should roll? There would be a monument to The Lost Ones in Canberra and legislation for restitution to The Lost Ones families. Tax funded operas would be written. Murals of Abbott soaked in blood would adorn our cities. We would know the names of the dead. Books would be written decrying the Liberal’s criminal negligence. It would never end.

    But yesterday, Fran Kelly thought Turnbull’s tone was a bit harsh in questioning Shorten’s credibility on immigration. Who gives a shit about the nameless, faceless thousand plus who drowned? Not Labor or the Greens or the ABC. Why? Because they had to be sacrificed to prove how compassionate and morally superior Labor and the Greens are.

    And we’re the stupid mugs who let the Green bastards walk scott free, because, duh, it’s more to the point to argue Muslims boat people won’t make good Aussies? God, no wonder we are losing the culture war. We’re politically the most naive players in the game. Even Jacqui Lambie is more savvy than that.

    Btw, if tens of thousands (tens of thousands, you say???) of any kind of refugees (short of Kiwi millionaires on private yachts) were trying to boat people themselves to our shores we should best stick with Abbott’s turn back policy, mate.

  220. struth

    Struth, you couldn’t be more comical if you tried. You said God was an Englishman! What a poltroon.

    Prove he isn’t.

    He isn’t David Cameron though, although he would definitely argue that point.

  221. You are a silly person, struth.

  222. Stimpson J. Cat

    If tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Syrian Christians were trying to get here annually, I’d want them met at sea and escorted to the nearest citizenship ceremony.

    I would have them sent back to the refugee camp nearest their home country.
    Where they could use their money to apply legally and wait in f?cking line.
    Like my family did.

  223. struth

    That may be true, Monty, but that’s only because I care.

    You will , within the next ten years, curse the arseholes that brainwashed you into leftism.
    As you grow up.
    However, I could just be being silly.

  224. Fisky

    Hillary will wrap up the nomination next month, the Bernistas will flock to her

    Hillary has already maxed out Dem support – read the polls!

  225. At the age of 43, I suspect I am too old for a conversion.

    Hey Fisky, at this point Romney was beating Obama. How did that work out?

  226. JC

    You will , within the next ten years, curse the arseholes that brainwashed you into leftism.
    As you grow up.

    Are you on drugs? Monst was born an idiot and will rightly die one.

  227. Has trump given sanders a nickname yet? or not worthy

  228. JC

    Monst it was around this time and just after the election you were telling us that the dude from the 531 blog had cornered the market in soothsaying….. and then the UK election came along. He bought the wrongology package from you.

  229. At the age of 43, I suspect I am too old for a conversion.

    nonsense we have holy water

  230. JC

    Has trump given sanders a nickname yet? or not worthy

    Zipperhead.

  231. Watch it JC or I’ll start posting liveleak be-headings

  232. The issue is whether tolerant Western process has limitations whereby values come in and not only do not fit into the process or social structure but actively seek to destroy it, islam for instance.

    The answer is unfolding as we speak.

  233. struth

    Are you on drugs? Monst was born an idiot and will rightly die one

    His son will be cursing left wing arseholes…………………

  234. JC

    His son will be cursing left wing arseholes…………………

    In a just universe far away, they took Monster’s son and handed the poor kid over to IT for safe keeping until he’s old enough not the fall for the bullshit his stupid dad is spouting.

  235. struth

    When I see Sanders I am reminded of that old quirky scientist on early Australian television, that got the boiled egg into the milk bottle.

    Science.

    Sanders is also pulling off feats of equally amazing amazement, which has children scratching their heads and squealing in delight.
    But no science, just “magical thinking”

  236. Silver got the UK wrong, yep. So did everyone else mind you, IIRC. Texas isn’t voting to secede though, so the situation is not analogous.

    The steak you buy me must not be less than 250 grams, JC. None of the penny pinching I would expect from you.

  237. JC

    The steak you buy me must not be less than 250 grams, JC. None of the penny pinching I would expect from you.

    Whomever buys, Monst I’ve penciled in a 750 g hunk of meat for you. Don’t worry. I know you’ve been panicking about this and want you to rest easy.

    Silver got the UK wrong, yep. So did everyone else mind you, IIRC. Texas isn’t voting to secede though, so the situation is not analogous.

    Yea, but it doesn’t fucking matter everyone else also got it wrong as he was your standout soothsayer who would never be wrong.

  238. The point about Silver was that you lot all swore until you were blue in the face that he was wrong about 2012, and you got your butts kicked when he turned out to be right on the money. So thanks for reminding us of that day of Cat ignominy once again! Good times.

  239. JohnA

    Wow, what a helluva long thread this article yielded…

    C.L. #2044728, posted on May 31, 2016, at 10:05 pm

    The truth is we don’t want borders madly open to boat arrivals because the passengers are Muslims and their effect on Australian culture and liberty is uncomplicatedly negative. If tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Syrian Christians were trying to get here annually, I’d want them met at sea and escorted to the nearest citizenship ceremony.

    No, CL, I would want them to come by plane with papers, via the normal immigration process.

    I would want our openly selective immigration procedures to consider how well (or not) a potential immigrant is likely to integrate into our enviable (detectable and distinguishable) way of life in Australia.

    I would want those procedures to distinctly and unashamedly favour those who would integrate over against those who desire to infiltrate and undermine the Australian culture.

    But I would also want those immigration procedures to encourage those desirable kinds of migrants in their original countries, instead of what the Whitlam government did – to our undying shame.

Comments are closed.