Andrew Bolt and the anti-semitic left

At least for the present, being anti-Semitic is still counted as a negative. How long that will be, who can tell, but it is not hard to see that those days may be coming to an end, and if they do, this change will be led by the tribalist left-of-centre collectivists in our midst.

The worst racists are on the left as are the worst anti-Semites. See, for example, Jeremy Corbyn admits Labour has ‘real problem’ with antisemitism. And now this here in Oz from Andrew Bolt who has to deal with this:

Hand him a mirror. Crikey’s Bernard Keane makes up stuff to paint me as an anti-Semite who makes his “blood run cold”.

Yet Keane himself claims Israel is guilty of “murder of unarmed protesters” and “systemic illegalities” under “the Netanyahu regime” and its “apartheid system”. He also defends the boycott of Israel that I have damned as racist.

Jews should realise Keane’s attack on me is an attack on their ally. His claims to be horrified by an anti-Semitism he pretends to detect are a complete smokescreen.

It is the left who thinks in relation to groups and group identity. It is the conservative right who think in terms of individuals and personal responsibility. Here’s how it now goes even in America:

Nazi as you know is the short form for National Socialists. ICE agents are not the Gestapo. But if you like to think that way, you are not just deluded, but are utterly free of historical judgement and common sense.

And a comment from Calli:

calli

In one way it makes life easier as I try to get to know new people and whether to keep them at arm’s length or not.

All I do is mention Israel.

Never fails.

Who is the ABC to preach to us about anything?

Did Jonathan Green really say this? From Andrew Bolt:

The other thing here on the point of shame and advertising your evil is that IS [Islamic State] depend on the likes of Tony Abbott to do that job for them – to exaggerate their evil, to continually talk about their death cultness, to parade this in front of us, this is doing their promotional work for them.

No doubt he can look himself in the mirror and see a fine, upstanding representative of the highest morality. The fact that others see him in a different way is merely because we are unable to see his virtues and deep insight into the human condition. Let me therefore also bring across the picture that Andrew put up.

isis murder

Pathological and psychotic, and that goes for anyone who does not condemn such barbarity to the absolutely fullest extent. Tell me how to exaggerate this kind of evil. This is sick and disgusting, and if there is anyone who does not agree, then what words shall we use to describe them? Who is the ABC to preach to us about anything?

Je hebt nog steeds niet krijgen

You know, Andrew Bolt just doesn’t get it. He really is just too clueless to understand the damage he has caused. Look at this latest post which is supposedly pointing the finger at the ALP: Labor – a party of lots of Bronwyn Bishops.

The metaphor he has helped establish is Bronwyn Bishop who was doing nothing more than her job by going to a party function from somewhere else she had been in the afternoon. If the country is too ignorant to know what it costs to run a Parliamentary system, then educate them. But Bronnie did nothing wrong that I can see, other than take a form of transport for which the Commonwealth is overcharged by a factor of ten. The scandal was in allowing such charging to take place, not that she took this form of transport. But to think he is turning the issue back on Labor by using Bronwyn Bishop’s name shows just how little he really understands about politics.

Pig Iron Mal

Picked up at Andrew Bolt that Malcolm Turnbull wishes to line up on the New York Times side of every issue, in this case possibly the single most important foreign policy issue of our generation. On the ABC naturally, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Islamic State threat should not be inflated. OK, but it all depends on what you mean by inflated. Here is Malcolm showing off his lack of political imagination:

Daesh is not Hitler’s Germany, Tojo’s Japan or Stalin’s Russia.

Really? What year we talking about, Malcolm? How about 1933? Same kind of stupid remark could have been made about all three at the time. Why don’t we leave it alone to fester a bit. Remember 911? That was the date. The year was 2001, fourteen years ago. Leave this one alone and where will we be fourteen years from now? Like Pig Iron Bob, we now have pig ignorant Mal.

It’s more than just a matter of words

I wrote this the other day but didn’t push the “publish” button. But with Andrew Bolt having put up a post today on The West attacked: killers to the right, ferals to the left, which begins with the sentence, “Islamists on the Right, anti-capitalists on the Left”, I will just have to buy in. The rest of this was written on Tuesday.

There are no two people in politics I agree with more consistently than Andrew Bolt and Peter Costello, so if I bring up one of Andrew Bolt’s posts in which both feature, it must be understood that I don’t disagree with a single point they make, only with the terms they use. Andrew’s post is titled, The Left now sounds just like the Islamist Right, in which Peter is quoted as saying:

Australia is one of the most successful, open, prosperous, accepting societies that the world has ever known. Being born here is one of the best things that could ever happen in a person’s life. That is worth explaining as part of immunising the young against the false political claims of extremists.

Andrew began the post with this where I will begin myself:

One of the most disturbing developments in public debates has been the Left giving cover to Islamists of the far Right.

There is, I must insist, no such thing as “Islamists of the far Right”. The right-left divide in politics is between those who value individual rights above collective rights and those who do not. The only person who ever correctly thought of Hitler as to his right politically was Joseph Stalin who introduced this notion into our political direction finder. To think of racists and extreme nationalists as part of the right is merely to defame those of us who see ourselves on the right, far or otherwise. It is we members of the right properly understood who almost alone have been willing to take the fight up to Nazis, fascists, communists and Islamists and have been able to do so without missing an ideological beat. To describe Islamists as “far right” wrongly aligns people such as ourselves with people such as themselves, and introduces a confusion of terms since the right-left divide then becomes less clear cut than it ought to be. No one on the right is ever described by those on the left as anything other than “far” right. To be on the right should be seen as a badge of honour.

Same with the word “conservative” who are people, again like ourselves, who find the open and tolerant society in which we live one we would like to see preserved, and therefore are very careful about the nature of change, and are never in any great hurry to see things radically altered. I am at one with Edmund Burke in believing in “the general bank and capital of nations and of ages”* as the great repository of common sense and social morality. It is being worn away as the left has continued its march through the institutions, but it has a powerful hold even still.

And then there is the quote from Peter, where he wrote, “the false political claims of extremists”. The word “extremists” is commonly used about Islamists. But calling Islamists “extremists” makes it seem that these views are well beyond some kind of norm, a thousand miles from the political centre. And so they are, if we restrict the frame of reference for other people’s political morality to our own view of things as found in our own culture, whose traditions travel back in time through to the British Isles and the values that have developed as part of our Judeo-Christian heritage. These are the great bequest we have inherited and we must do everything we can to defend this history from the ignorance of the fanatics in our midst. To call our enemies “extreme” is to misread how they think of themselves. They are perhaps on the more aggressive side of their own value set, but they seem to be far from “extreme” within the communities in which they live. The extremists in such communities are more likely to be the people who agree with us, the ones who would like to share in our own cultural tradition and make common cause with us. Even living here in a Western nation, it is still not easy for them, as the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali has shown. The proper word to describe Islamists is “barbarians”. If the left chooses to side with them, that is what they are as well.

____________

*”You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess, that we are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.” From Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, p 145.

Islamists are not on the “far right” and they are not “extremists”

There are no two people in politics I agree with more consistently than Andrew Bolt and Peter Costello, so if I bring up one of Andrew Bolt’s posts in which both feature, it must be understood that I don’t disagree with a single point they make, only with the terms they use. Andrew’s post is titled, The Left now sounds just like the Islamist Right, in which Peter is quoted as saying:

Australia is one of the most successful, open, prosperous, accepting societies that the world has ever known. Being born here is one of the best things that could ever happen in a person’s life. That is worth explaining as part of immunising the young against the false political claims of extremists.

Andrew began the post with this where I will begin myself:

One of the most disturbing developments in public debates has been the Left giving cover to Islamists of the far Right.

There is, I must insist, no such thing as “Islamists of the far Right”. The right-left divide in politics is between those who value individual rights above collective rights and those who do not. The only person who ever correctly thought of Hitler as to his right politically was Joseph Stalin who introduced this notion into our political direction finder. To think of racists and extreme nationalists as part of the right is merely to defame those of us who see ourselves on the right, far or otherwise. It is we members of the right properly understood who almost alone have been willing to take the fight up to Nazis, fascists, communists and Islamists and have been able to do so without missing an ideological beat. To describe Islamists as “far right” wrongly aligns people such as ourselves with people such as themselves, and introduces a confusion of terms since the right-left divide then becomes less clear cut than it ought to be. No one on the right is ever described by those on the left as anything other than “far” right. To be on the right should be seen as a badge of honour.

Same with the word “conservative” who are people, again like ourselves, who find the open and tolerant society in which we live one we would like to see preserved, and therefore are very careful about the nature of change, and are never in any great hurry to see things radically altered. I am at one with Edmund Burke in believing in “the general bank and capital of nations and of ages”* as the great repository of common sense and social morality. It is being worn away as the left has continued its march through the institutions, but it has a powerful hold even still.

And then there is the quote from Peter, where he wrote, “the false political claims of extremists”. The word “extremists” is commonly used about Islamists. But calling Islamists “extremists” makes it seem that these views are well beyond some kind of norm, a thousand miles from the political centre. And so they are, if we restrict the moral compass we use to judge other people’s political morality to our own view of things as found in our own culture, whose traditions travel back in time through to the British Isles and the values that have developed as part of our Judeo-Christian heritage. These are the great bequest of our cultural traditions and we must do everything we can to defend this history from the ignorance of the fanatics in our midst. To call our enemies “extreme” is to misread how they think of themselves. They are perhaps on the more aggressive side of their own value set, but they seem to be far from “extreme” within the communities in which they live. The extremists in such communities are more likely to be the people who agree with us, the ones who would like to share in our own cultural tradition and make common cause with us. Even living here in a Western nation, it is still not easy for them, as the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali has shown. The proper word to describe Islamists is “barbarians”. If the left chooses to side with them, that is what they are as well.

____________

*”You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess, that we are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.” From Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, p 145.

The Australian and Mr Abbott

The Australian seems ever so gently to be edging towards an anti-Abbott position which may, or may not, reflect the views of its owner, but which definitely does not reflect the views of at least one of its readers. I almost always start the paper with Cut and Paste which, up until recently, had always been written up in a way that matched my own view of things. But of late, there have been a few that have left me completely perplexed, since to make sense of them as a form of irony, you would have to be pro-Labor. Today Cut and Paste was devoted to Andrew Bolt’s deconstruction of John Lyon’s nonsense story on Abbott’s supposed plan for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Andrew is back on this theme today, and you will have to pardon his French: This campaign to intimidate me will not work: Lyons’ claim remains bullshit. Why The Australian persists with this story, since it was utterly implausible from the start, I do not know, but it does make me nervous. The editorial, also today, critical of Abbott’s statement about the cost of funding remote aboriginal communities, was more of the same.

And just to push the same message along, there is the feature opinion piece of the day, also a negative take on the cost of servicing remote aboriginal sites, and written by the presenter of Radio National’s Drive Program. Naturally, the need to contain costs is as remote from her consciousness as are these various sites.

And again today, also on the opinion page, there is an article near on incomprehensible to me by Nikki Savva, who I normally ignore, about something Credlin wrote to some Senator and the smouldering resentment it seems to have caused for reasons that remain unclear. Whatever it was, she has seen fit to do a bit of troublemaking, whose long-term good can only be for the Labor Party, but may provide some assistance along the way to Malcolm.

Then yesterday, on the front page but below the fold, there was a small but respectful article about Malcolm Turnbull’s speech on the economy and about what a great job he believes he could do to sell the current need to bring fiscal responsibility back. Maybe so, but the evidence Turnbull can sell anything other than pre-approved Labor polices to Labor voters is still untested. So it is good to see another perspective: Hartigan attacks Turnbull on “woeful” record. It begins:

FORMER News Corp boss John Hartigan has launched a blistering attack against Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull for failing to reform media laws, accusing of him of having a “woeful” track record and ignoring regional communities.

The chairman of regional TV company Prime Media Group was responding to Turnbull’s “tough talking speech about the economy” to the Brisbane Club yesterday, which he said was “packed full of platitudes about embracing the future and the need for reform”.

Hartigan said: “Malcolm Turnbull reckons he can sell tough reform, but his track record in his own portfolio is woeful.”

“The Minister likes to talk the talk when discussing the economy, but when it comes to tackling much needed media reform in his own portfolio, I wonder if he will walk the walk?

For Malcolm to think he has been a political genius in finding a way to bring in Labor’s NBN with a mild reduction in the level of pure waste may seem wonderful to him but not to me. Where was he when the NBN was being debated in the first place? A white elephant that will sink our living standards, an outcome on which I have never heard Turnbull say a word. I wonder if he even knows.

But the story is also anti-Coalition since it the Government’s media policy, not just Turnbull’s. Not good. Very not good is all I can say.

One of the great scandals in the history of science

That the promoters of global warming are prone to exaggerate if not actually lie has made me sceptical of any of the recent nonsense that this is the warmest year ever. It is, unfortunately, a full-time job to keep an eye on the weather-gauge, and with Andrew Bolt on leave, who’s around to do it. Luckily, John Hinderaker at Powerline is onto it. His latest article is Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year Ever? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t. First he goes back over the long series back a few thousand years, which makes the present one of the coolest periods in the planet’s history. Then he turns to the recent record:

Moreover, contrary to the activists’ claims, 2014 wasn’t even the warmest recent year. The “warmest ever” designation came from NASA and NOAA, which are run by global warming activists. They have distorted surface temperature records by surreptitiously “adjusting” historical records to make the past (e.g., the 1930s) look cooler and the present warmer. This is one of the great scandals in the history of science, which we have written about repeatedly. Since the activists won’t say what changes they have made and why they have made them, their records must be considered hopelessly corrupt. Beyond that, they aren’t even adjusted for the urban heat island effect, which obviously exists. Most temperature recording stations are in urban areas, and they have gotten warmer in recent decades as a result of economic development and population growth, not carbon dioxide.

The only global temperature records that are fully transparent are satellite records in the lower atmosphere. These go back only to 1979. They show no warming during the last 18 years. The satellite records, interpreted by two different groups, find 2014 to be either the third warmest or the sixth warmest since 1979. But the real point is that the differences are infinitesimal. The uncorrupted atmospheric data show that no significant warming is going on.

The corruption, driven as it is by an anti-capitalist, anti-free-market band of vandals – who nevertheless are in large part in it for the grant money it allows them to collect – is merely one of the ways we are being ruined, but as important as any of the rest. The left used to say that capitalism would make the workers poor. Now that we have seen that capitalism has made the workers extraordinarily well off, the left are determined to make sure we all end up poor, and they will certainly succeed if we let them.

MORE REALITY TO ADD TO THE REST: This is from a climate blog linked to at Drudge:

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: ‘Claiming 2014 is the ‘hottest year’ on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.’

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: ‘The NASA press release is highly misleading…talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: ‘We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.’

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.’

How surprised by this are you?

obama you let the whole world down

From Drudge:

‘We can live together’…
Netanyahu, Abbas attend Paris mass rally…
Largest in French history…
KISS-OFF: USA represented only by ambassador?
Officials skipped Washington ‘Charlie’ rally, too…
Gunman appears in chilling video, declares loyalty to Islamic State…
WIRE: Both brothers had weapons training in Yemen…
Afghanistan rally hails attackers as ‘heroes’…
FEINSTEIN: Terrorist sleeper cells are in USA…
FBI Assuming Larger Surveillance Role…

MEANWHILE BACK IN AUSTRALIA: This is titled, Our Gutless Surrender, is written by Roger Kimball, is published at PJ Media in the US, but begins:

The Melbourne-based journalist and television commentator Andrew Bolt is celebrated and reviled by all the right (i.e., all the left) people throughout his native land. He’s been threatened, sued, and otherwise harassed by the politically correct establishment that, despite the great Tony Abbott in the prime minister’s seat, holds sway in Oz. Along with the writers associated with Quadrant magazine in Sydney, Bolt is one of only a handful of people who have effectively challenged the sclerotic orthodoxy of establishment opinion on all matter of issues, from the Aborigines and immigration to the virtues of free-market economics to the cesspool of hatred that is the ideology of radical Islam.

It does require a special kind of brave, which unfortunately not everyone has.

Bolt is back

Actually, he is still in Holland. But in case you missed them, there are two new posts up at his blog. The first is, No, you are not all Charlie. Here is the whole thing:

I am in Holland and the other night, in Groningen, passed one of those demonstrations now held all over Europe in support of the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the journalists murdered this week by Islamists. Many people held up the sign seen at all these demonstrations: Je suis Charlie. I am Charlie.

Pardon me, but those signs are just not true. Charlie Hebdo was selected by al Qaeda for attack precisely because almost no one else was Charlie Hebdo. It was almost alone in newspapers and magazines to mock the ideology that so many other journalists fear. That is why it was the target, and, say, The Age, The Guardian or the New York Times not.

And I suspect this attack will work. There will in fact be fewer Charlie Hebdos than ever. More on this in tomorrow’s Sunday Herald Sun, once the lawyers have carefully checked what I am permitted to say under our already absurd laws against free speech.

The second is his column in the Herald Sun today, Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no. Here are the first two paras:

PROTESTERS around the West, horrified by the massacre in Paris, have held up pens and chanted “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie.

They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.

UPDATE: Perhaps more than just a one-week wonder: French Premier Declares ‘War’ on Radical Islam as Paris Girds for Rally:

Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday that France was at war with radical Islam after the harrowing sieges that led to the deaths of three gunmen and four hostages the day before. New details emerged about the bloody final confrontations, and security forces remained on high alert.

“It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity,” Mr. Valls said during a speech in Évry, south of Paris.

We’ll see. Check back in about a week.