Thursday, October 01, 2015

A bumper pond edition, in which, through gritted teeth, the white-anting continues, the pond endures a simple-minded history lesson from the bromancer, the Bolter is remembered for the Iraq war, and the femi-fascists provide a concluding cartoon ...

The pond almost overlooked yesterday's splendid effort by the Terrorists to spread Terror far and wide. How's the NT News holding up against such a splendid effort?

Hah, pathetic. Is that all you've got, Darwinians? Aliens and crocs? Forget it, we've got stalking sharks. Give the pond a yell when you're up to competing with the Terrorists ...

Meanwhile, in the sombre, sedate world of serious, respectable broadsheet journalism (oh remember when that divide meant something), the bouffant one is deeply into Erica:

Oh dear, that sounds serious, and look there's a picture of a smiling Erica ... what a trooper, laughing through his disappointment ...

Uh huh. But what about Erica's home state? Is the bouffant one going to report what was reported elsewhere?

Senator Abetz's claim of "hundreds" of resignations was immediately disputed by the President of the Tasmanian Liberals who said only 7 members had quit and that had been outweighed by 8 new applications to join. 
"While any resignation of any member is regrettable we need to keep a sense of proportion about this given that it is a matter of public record that the Tasmanian Division's membership numbers over 2000," President Geoff Page wrote on Facebook. (here at Fairfax with forced video).

Nope, nope, nope. Seems like the bouffant one is happy to entertain the white-anting and the destabilising and the grand-standing of the nervous nelly Erica:

The pond has to thank Erica for one of the more graciously self-serving, up the fundament, serves in recent tennis history:

It is understandable that with the removal of Tony Abbott, Kevin Andrews and myself from the ministry that our core constituency feels disenfranchised ...

Yes, who knows how that humbug poseur and eastern suburbs ponce got the numbers, but he'll understand what it's like to be a plucked chook, and soon enough ... as the conspirators gather on the back bench ...

Meanwhile, the pond was entranced by the bromancer's latest effort, which might be dubbed a child's guide to Australian history ...

... at least if the child is under ten, doesn't have a clue or a shred of memory as to what really happened, and thinks that the bromancer - who proudly boasts of his ignorance in relation to world affairs - is some kind of useful guide.

Take it away bromancer, show us how a simplistic summary for dills is what passes for broadsheet reading in these wretched Murdochian, reptilian days ...

Imagine how the electorate would have treated Ben Chifley if he'd run for election in 1949 ...

Oh wait ...

But please, do go on ...

And so, in this astonishing world view, the hapless, useless Billy McMahon emerges redeemed, which naturally sets up the completely useless Tony Abbott for some kind of redemption, while the always useful Gough Whitlam cops all the barbs.

The stability we crave ...

Which just goes to show that the bromancer doesn't have a clue. There's more to life than stability, and under McMahon, the Liberal party was completely clueless. The nation voted for change. It might have got more change than it expected, along with some totally dud ministers, but even the times that Sheridan celebrates - the years of Ming the Merciless and Howard - were riven by change.

Who remembers now the credit squeeze and the recession and the election of 1961 which saw Menzies scrape back with a one seat majority? And Jim Killen getting home with the help of 93 Communist preferences? A result that almost saw the gravel-voiced antiquated Arthur Calwell get to power (you can Greg Hunt it here).

Apparently Sheridan has no time for subtlety, nuance or change.

But if you read the carry-on by the reptiles on a daily basis, the last thing they want is stability. They want change, dubbing it "reform", including the slashing of penalty rates, the abuse of pensioners, the tearing down of the health system, the privatising of the education system and so on and endlessly on ...

Whatever you call it, that's not stability, but that's what, on any other day of the week, the bromancer would be craving.

In reality what he's doing here is holding up Malware to a golden age ... knowing that Malware will fall short, and he won't lead us to the alleged stability that we allegedly crave.

Let the destabilising continue, long may it flourish ...

And with the help of the Bolter it will continue ...

Uh huh. Let's overlook the first Iraq war and the ongoing relationship between Australia and the United States and its dearly beloved fundamentalist Wahhabist ally.

Speaking of licking the boots of despots and tyrants, where was the Bolter when Australia joined in the second Iraq war while Saudi Arabia tried to hold its Wahhabist nose?

Here in Australia, Andrew Bolt wrote a column on 20 April 2003, announced that he wanted to 'let the accountability begin'. 
In that piece, he denounced by name a whole series of war opponents: Simon Crean for doubting links between terrorists and Saddam, Carmen Lawrence for anticipating 480,000 deaths, Bob Brown for predicting 100,000 deaths of children and 900,000 refugees, Paul Dibb for talking of 'cholera or typhoid' and 'street-by-street fighting with enormous casualties', the Australian Sociological Association for suggesting the war would be 'responsible for the probable loss of 100,000 civilians', Robert Manne for anticipating that perhaps 'hundreds of thousands of Iraqis' would die, Amin Saikal for suggesting 'Baghdad will be turned into a bloodbath', Andrew Vincent for expecting 'absolute chaos, I think, in the whole of the Middle East and the Muslim world', and so on. 
In retrospect, Bolt's piece sums up the politics of the era perfectly. 
The people he listed massively underestimated the catastrophe that was coming - to take merely one measure, the Iraq invasion's now estimated to have created something like three million refugees, not the 900,000 predicted by Brown. 
Nonetheless, they were basically right and Bolt was catastrophically wrong. Not only was he mistaken on everything, he did everything in his power to belittle those who weren't, so as to ensure a cataclysmic war took place on schedule. (here)

Oh yes indeed ...

Let me put this plainly. The leaders of the Australian war party – John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Alexander Downer – and their most influential cheerleaders – Chris Mitchell, Andrew Bolt, Greg Sheridan – bear some responsibility for the deaths of half a million Iraqis, for the incalculable number of deaths still to come and for the unimaginable suffering that has been endured by the people of Iraq since the invasion of their country. And yet so far as I am aware – their supreme self-confidence apparently unaffected by the catastrophe they had helped unleash in Iraq – not one of these warriors of the right has expressed even one word of contrition or remorse. (here).

Speaking, as we were, of grubby little boot-licking, lickspittle fellow travelling war mongers ... now doing their best to demonise the UN, and destabilise Malware ...

And so finally to a follow-up of recent pond business.

Well actually, since you ask, you eternally useless Pru Goward, if someone starts spewing around the word "fascist", in complete defiance of Godwin's Law, all bets are off.

If you dribble on and on about femi-fascists, you're a troll. And when someone writes "Come on ladies", the pond is reminded of the stupid gentlemen of Tamworth who imagined that calling women ladies was a sign of respect when in fact it was designed as a profound insult ...

But at least something good came of the fuss, in the form of a First Dog cartoon.

Ah yes, the good old femi-fascist joke. 

Come on ladies, let's call Pru Goward a doofus lover of the Devine, ergo a hater of femi-fascists, and let First Dog continue, and the original First Dog in its original form is available here.


  1. I see a rider on a white horse ...

  2. It occurred to me that the reason The Bromancer craves 'Stable Government' (which would seem incompatible with his hero in any event) is that it makes it easier to spread his horseshit.

  3. Dot...have you seen this nice piece of Sydney Anglican bigotry?

    1. Thanks Anon, the pond is eagerly awaiting the full report and the angry Sydney Anglicans doing it one more time...

  4. The "deeply conservative" Mal Frazer, Sheridan writes? The Mal Frazer who lurved Ayn Rand's, ahem, 'philosophy' might not agree with that deeply shallow and fuckwitted analysis.

  5. I would prefer our leaders to face the ballot box rather than be smashed in the face by the revolving door but I do not think our quick turnover of PMs indicates instability. I think it shows that the two major political parties are out of step with many people in this country. I think Australians, with notable exceptions, have far more common sense than those who want to bend us to their will.
    In my opinion Turnbull is on the wrong bus when he implies that Australians are afraid of change.
    It is not change itself, it is the nature of that change which makes us skittish and suspicious.
    Abbott's slogans made it quite clear what the coalition wants. Turnbull hopes to charm us into submission.
    I wonder what will happen.
    Miss pp

    1. If you take Abbott out of the equation Miss pp (he was leader of his party from 2009-2015) a lot of the revolving door stuff evaporates. Without Abbott sniping from the sidelines Rudd would most probably have given up, and we would have had a stable government under Gillard (notwithstanding Rupe's jibes).

      I know, fantasyland.

  6. Fraser's ascent in 1983?????? Go back to sleep, Greg.

    1. You gotta appreciate, Auldbrixo, that it's hard to get everything right when you're rewriting history.

  7. Stability? Easy! For the last 50 years, Rupert Murdoch has caused much of the instability in this country's governments by actively 'campaigning' against any government he didn't like.

  8. Surely stability is a product of the quality of leadership. Now I play no part in electing the leader of any political party, but I would like to believe that people take the election of a leader seriously, and think about what that person might be like in that position.

    If a leader is elected purely due to their ability to win an election, then a mistake has been made. The last ten years will show that leaders elected for this purpose (Rudd, Abbott, and now Turnbull) invariably fail.

    Turnbull has an opportunity to break that cycle, but so far the signs are not good. He will have to change the minds of the party, and the Nats on many issues - and the Nats were the people with whom he had to sign an agreement that he wouldn't try and change their minds. It will be a real test of his skills.

  9. Adding to Malware's problems, a chirpy little feller named Abbott on the wireless radio down here in Melbourne today saying that he'd never trusted him.

    Question without notice: is Abbott on holidays while he does this media rotation of white-anting, or is he on government business, thus we are paying him as he does it?

    1. I hope someone is paying close attention to his travel claims.

  10. Bromancer likes stability so he knows who to suck up to. one of Australia's best sycophants!

  11. If I didn't know that the late Frank Devine's views were just as toxic as those of his daughter Miranda, I'd be tempted to suggested that the old man died of shame.

    Of course nobody with any real standards would ever make such a tasteless suggestion.

  12. It's not "history for children", its not even "lies for children", its just completely fucking delusional.

    Take his summary of World War 2 - Curtin did not oppose fighting the Nazis per se (beyond his general and oft-stated contempt for the utility of trying to solve problems through force). What he opposed was the dispatch of an expeditionary force, in the style of the First World War, which saw over 300,000 casualties and 55,000 combat deaths. He did so for sound reasons:
    1. Chamberlain's pre-war policy of appeasement was balanced in part by considerable increases in defence spending as a hedge against the worst case scenario, giving Britain a just-adequate defence in 1940. Lyons and Menzies had supported appeasement, but without that spending hedge, leaving the army and air force underfunded and utterly unequipped for modern high-intensity combat in 1939. Curtin opposed sending troops against a modern army (German) until they too had adequate tools for the job. When the 2nd AIF was sent regardless, he could not have been more supportive of those men and their families.
    2. He accurately identified the need to balance combat strength and industrial strength, and was concerned to ensure that sufficient capacity was built up to meet the needs of prolonged war before sending troops overseas. Both parties had failed to do this in World War One, resulting in Australia sending far too many ground troops to get slaughtered in Europe without adequate logistical and productive support tailing back to Australia.
    3. He regarded the defence of Australia as the paramount task for the armed forces, and was concerned to ensure that adequate provision was made to deal with the incipient threat of a Pacific conflict. The Commonwealth forces overrun in the first days of that conflict make that concern seem pretty sound.

    This is all neatly summarised in his 1940 election speech in Perth: (a speech which addresses many issues still current - profits before people, concentration of media ownership, substance versus slogans, etc)

    Of course, Sheridan is led astray by his masturbatory fixation with "the quality of our fighting men", a delusion shared by many reptiles, in 1939 and now. It's ironic that so many in the ADF lean towards conservative politics, because they are typically put in harms way by governments of that stripe, imbued with an infantile faith that our "inherent superiority as natural soldiers" can make up for a lack of adequate means or a clear mission. Now lets go bomb Syria!

    1. Good stuff Frank D, though sadly it will be completely wasted on the bromancer ...

    2. "Take his summary of World War 2...." Take it to the bin, and that's the bin, not the recycle bin.

      Yours is a summary of World War 2 Frank D (a goodun too), his is not.


Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.