Who you calling old?

There was this interesting exchange on Q&A last Monday:

I sit next to Greens in the Senate and hear that claptrap all time. It is absolute garbage.


I must say, you old men!


There are no old women who are climate…

Excuse me. How old are you?

According to the Wikipedia, so it must be true, Judith Brett was born in 1949 making her 68 sometime this year. David Leyonhjelm was born in 1952 – he is 65.

While we’re on Q&A I hope someone fact checks this statement by Judith Brett:

The Communists, though, had never perpetrated the sorts of murders of civilians that we’re now dealing with.

I seem to recall something about 100 million deaths in the 20th century … To be fair to emeritus Professor Brett the Islamist terrorists are still playing catch up, but I don’t think that was the point she was trying to make.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, Libertarians don't live by argument alone, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Who you calling old?

  1. 2dogs

    I think the point about communists was the nature rather than the number of deaths. Communists terrorists like the red army faction typically went after “more legitimate” targets like police officers rather than children. And the millions of dead in Communist countries were not malevolently blown up, they starved to death due to incompetence. Both wrong, but there’s a difference in malice.

  2. Oh come on

    But she’s an old woman and that makes all the difference.

    It was a cheap shot, but it hit the mark with a Q&A audience not interested in having their religion subjected to the ridicule it needs.

    Brett ought to be ashamed of herself. An apology would certainly be in order. I wonder if she offers one after a bit of self-reflection.

  3. BrettW

    Good smack down by DL.

    Clearly DL is a misogynist and needs to be sent to a Communist re-education camp.

    Just don’t mention Stalin.

    Drain the Unis now (with the exception of our host naturally !).

  4. Rafe Champion

    Red guards beat people to death in China during the cultural revolution, including the head teacher of my friends school. No malice?

  5. calli

    I’m warming to DL. Good on him for taking on the vicious old battleaxe.

  6. Rafe Champion

    Learn some history 2dogs. Several millions of Russian farm fami9lies including women and children were deliberately starved to death to collectivise their farms.

  7. Oh come on

    2dogs, you aren’t familiar with Democratic Kampuchea?

    And Stalin’s famine in Ukraine was certainly not caused by “incompetence”. The Soviets knew exactly what they were doing.

  8. hzhousewife

    There are no old women who are climate…

    I’m assuming the next word would have been “deniers”?

    In which case, Ms Brett, you are quite quite wrong. I am an old deplorable white woman, who is definately a climate “denier”. So that just cancels out your vote right there.

  9. Tal

    Yep this old bitch is a climate denier

  10. Des Deskperson

    FMD, she’s a Professor Emeritus of Politics – admittedly at Australia’s 20th best university – and she doesn’t know about Stalin’s ‘dekulakisation’ campaigns – involving the mass slaughter of civilian ‘unbelievers’, just like ISIS – , and that’s just for starters.

    Here’s her staff profile from Latrobe:


    She’s certainly well connected for an ignoramus.

  11. Oh come on

    What’s really strange is that, IIRC, the ABC’s Q&A promo described her as something like “she’s the woman who discovered Robert Menzies’s ‘forgotten people'”. Funny as I’m pretty sure it was Robert Menzies who discovered them.

  12. mark

    2dogs, definitely wrong about malice, as noted by commenters above. Kampuchea was no mistake, either. Read Foucault, and other Parisian Maoists around 1972. You’ll find horrors similar to that of Kampuchea, which began around 1975, quite openly and publicly discussed as features of the Parisian Maoists’ ideal society. Amazing, but true! Kampuchea was the invention of Parisian intellectuals. Pol Pot and his henchmen were all ‘educated’ there.

  13. lotocoti

    but there’s a difference in malice.

    I guess Nemmersdorf was more bestial than malicious.

  14. Habib

    Daft old trout. In more sensible times they’d toddle off in their dotage to bore each other at bowls and CWA morning teas, and otherwise wisely ignored. Now the old bats get a national soapbox, a megaphone, and bloody tenure. Mind you, here scones probably have an ounce bag of skunk in ’em.

    BTW the commies are clear leaders in the genocide stakes, both directly, and through sheer incompetence and blind adherence to a degenerate dogma. The loopy loppers are rank amateurs, but very public about their croakings.

  15. Ainsley Hayes

    Speaking of purges and cruel and unusual punishment exacted on ‘legitimate’ targets, someone pass 2dogs a copy of the Gulag Archipelago and Darkness at noon.

  16. Both wrong, but there’s a difference in malice.

    100 million dead. But it’s by accident, so that’s okay.

    Fuck me sideways.

  17. Rev. Archibald

    they starved to death due to incompetence. Both wrong, but there’s a difference in malice.

    Stalin wanted to industrialise as quickly as possible.
    Sold the grain overseas for the cash.
    Got to starve kulaks as an added bonus.
    Truly one of the most evil monsters in history.
    As was Lenin.
    As was Mao.

  18. Rev. Archibald

    I think Zhukov said of Beria. (He may as well have said it of Stalin):
    Tried to turn the entire country into a prison camp.
    Give them half a chance again, they will do it to the entire world.

  19. C.L.

    Judith Brett

    I’ve never heard of her.

  20. Turtle of WA

    Jo Nova, Donna Lafromboise and Judith Curry are three female climate skeptics. There are many more.

  21. JC

    I’ve never heard of her.

    Keep it that way. Nothing’s lost.

  22. 100 million is a low bound estimate. 160 million is quite within the bounds of possibility.

  23. Notafan

    The murder of peasants by Stalin was most certainly motivated by malice.



  24. Baldrick

    While we’re on Q&A I hope someone fact checks this statement by Judith Brett:
    The Communists, though, had never perpetrated the sorts of murders of civilians that we’re now dealing with.

    I’ve sent in a request for that statement to be fact checked. I’ll post the response, if they answer it.

  25. iain russell

    2dogs, no. Terror was a stand out tactic of communists everywhere. Most recently it was the trade mark of the Viet Cong. The slaughter of men, women and children by these heroes of the ‘progressives’ was horrific. Then we look at Cambodia.

  26. Fergus

    All Communists regimes were “master race” ideologues who mass slaughtered for ideology, and fun.
    Communism is about keeping everyone, apart from the “ch*sen *nes”, equally poor. The leadership, vicious, greedy and murderous corruptocrats.

  27. Fergus

    Wouldn’t let me post without the *. The reference wasn’t even about the * people, it was about the self identification of the communist elite scum. Like now, they’ve always been deluded about their holiness.

  28. Indigo

    Muslims are even better killers than the Communists. Estimates are 500 million Hindus were killed in the 500 years after the Muslim invasion of India. No wonder Hindus hate muslims.

  29. John Bayley

    While I agree with the commenters above who have pointed out that mass murder is not a bug of a communist system, but rather a feature desired by its architects, nevertheless the Commies made one mistake the Mohammedans have not.

    Specifically, the Commies were atheists and therefore could only promise a paradise on earth. Therefore even the peasants were eventually bound to notice – if after a few decades – that the system was not delivering.

    On the other hand, Islam promises paradise only after death; particularly so if that death is accompanied by as many murdered infidels as possible. So it can never be proven exactly where the “brave martyrs” who blow up children do end up after such a deed.

    Hence unlike with the Commies, where nuclear deterrents could work until their system collapsed due to its own deficiencies, no such stand off is possible with the current enemy, who not only do not fear mass deaths, but in fact actively seek such an outcome.

    I have no doubt that if the likes of ISIS ever get hold of a nuclear weapon, they will not hesitate a microsecond to use it.

    So in other words, Commies can be argued with, and perhaps even, in the longer run, defeated via the “battle of ideas” rather than through a hot war. Although given what is being taught at schools and Unis all over the West, I am pessimistic that such an outcome can in fact be attained in the foreseeable future.

    In contrast, unless Islam is either exterminated altogether, or entirely reformed, the battle cannot be won. And alas, neither of the two outcomes is anywhere on the horizon; in fact our “glorious leaders” are not even prepared to admit where the actual problem lies.

  30. Rabz

    The communists, though, had never perpetrated the sorts of murders of civilians that we’re now dealing with.

    No so called “academic” could make such a statement out of ignorance.

    That it was made on the stinking ALPBC simply makes it even more offensive.

  31. Robbo

    If Brett is so sloppy with the facts, and the truth, how the hell did she ever qualify for the rank of Professor?

  32. struth

    “Old white men”

    Age-ist, racist, and sexist.
    Zero self awareness is what enables the hypocrisy of the left.

  33. stackja

    #2404412, posted on June 7, 2017 at 8:27 am
    If Brett is so sloppy with the facts, and the truth, how the hell did she ever qualify for the rank of Professor?

    La Trobe University, the third university in Vic. Third rate?

  34. 2dogs

    I fully accept the barbarity of Communist states. I’m saying ISIS is worse.

  35. Louis Hissink

    Islam is simply theologically guided socialism/communism. The cultural Marxist sect of this group control the global governance mechanisms, so it should be easy to work out what is actually going on.

    And it’s interesting that she shows such an ignorance of historical fact – it gets to the state where official history, (is there any other?), is best viewed as fake-history unless demonstrated otherwise. I suspect a lot of history is the result of people only seeing what they believe, and the product of deluded minds.

  36. Peter Bayne

    Note that her La Trobe profile states that “She is committed to engaged political research, bringing the fruits of her enquiry to the general public through books written for a broad general readership and through the media”. One might read this as a statement that she does not write for a scholarly audience, and the word “engaged” might signal that her writing is designed to persuade readers to a particular standpoint. She might say that she is now out of the scholarly game and her sloppy (at least) statement about Communists suggests that this is so. La Nauze wrote a scholarly two volume bio of Deakin quite some time ago, and the test of where she stands now will turn on how much original research and thinking her book reveals.

  37. Rebel with cause

    Both communism and Islam are ideologies for humourless losers.

    Used to be great sport telling gags about Ivan. One of the best weapons against the Soviets was humour and mockery. The Soviets just responded by hitting the vodka harder.

    Islam is ripe for comedy but the humourless losers have convinced those in power that it is rude to make fun of them, and reinforce this through violence. They know what they are doing – sustained mockery would kill Islam stone dead.

  38. Rebel with cause

    To put it more bluntly, it’s a wonder for our age that the West is kowtowing to a bunch of goatherding losers. As a society we’ve toked way too hard on the peace pipe.

  39. Squirrel

    I must say, you old men!


    Well what a surprising response – in the eyes of that audience group, DL would be a “grumpy” old man, whereas JB would be a “feisty” lady (no double standards, at all…..)

  40. Marcus Classis

    How it should have gone:

    I must say, you old men!

    You are a sexist pig.

    Reframe and punch back

  41. Andrew M

    We are regularly reminded by the Progressives that the Nazis were extreme right wing.
    The merest mention of the Soviet Union immediately provokes the assertion that the USSR was not proper socialism.
    Of course the capitalist West could not be described as Collectivism of any type.
    This leads to the amazing conclusion that there were no Leftists involved in World War II.
    Some how the Lefties really are as pure as the driven snow in Stalingrad.
    Amazing how a bit of revisionism can freshen up an ideology.

Comments are closed.