Saturday, September 17, 2016

In which the pond lands amongst Christhanson, the dog botherer and the Hansonites ...

(Above: and more excellent, remarkably accurate Rowe portraits here).

So much business this Saturday, and having just watched Michelle Obama's speech in Virginia, urging the virtue of aiming high while others aimed low, the pond naturally thought the only way forward was to aim low ...

Well, how else to justify reading the likes of prattling Polonius and the dog botherer?

But first, a little unfinished business. The pond is anxiously looking forward to Monday after David Marr spat out Chris Mitchell's massive Marxist memory lapse: mate, I could have put you right, in The Graudian which, spoiler alert, finished this way:

Roll on Monday.

Strangely it reminded the pond of the way that the polite Michelle Obama responded to Trump's recanting of his birtherism, in a way still replete with odious lies.

The high road response or the low road response? 

Well Mitchell's Order of Lenin hunting is as contemptible and as pitiful as Trump's birtherism and the high road response is good for those where a seemly balance is part of the duties of office. 

But for the pond, it's a simple matter ... there's nothing fucking there ...

And so to the business of the day and what a range of riches to choose from ...

Such an embarrassment of riches, or if you will, fuckwitted futtockry, and getting out the pin, the pond managed to land first on the tail of the dog botherer ... who, it turns out, can be invited to any party to play the donkey ...

The dog botherer continues the pond's theme of the day - how the facilitators, hand-wringers, lick spittle fellow travellers, quislings and apologists do the work of the likes of teh Donald and Pauline Hanson by demurring and dissembling ...

It's how Trump got away with his birtherism for years, and is still getting away with the many associated lies he peddled ...

And yet the whole thing - even in the NY Times - is being treated as just another form of reality television. You know, like in the final episode of Unreal, when the stoner EP brings back the bitch villain for the final show down ...

Now the same process is at work in the lickspittle fellow travelling notion that somehow Pauline Hanson is being put on a witch trial ...

Here's a witch trial ...

Where was the dog botherer then? No doubt writing explanations about how it wasn't such a bad thing ...

And so to the current grovelling, pathetic apologetics ...

Oh fuck, suddenly climate science is in the mix.

But you see Mr Kenny, she's a racist and a bigot, and as a climate scientist, about as useful as you are. What else is there to say? This isn't righteousness or moral superiority. It's a simple, honest, straightforward, from the Tamworth hip, recognition that you're pretty much a simpleton and a fuck-wit.

And despite prattling Polonius's plea that we shouldn't disdain the ill-educated, we have to drawn the line somewhere, don't we?

But not, apparently, climate science. That's something we should all agree with Hanson on ...

The logic, if you will, is Hansonesque, as is the purest waffle about words and actions and fully engaged in social cohesion, as if anything the dog botherer writes does the slightest bit of good when it comes to actual social cohesion ...

And that's the supreme lie, the profoundly useless myth that the dog botherer peddles along with the Hansonites - "reaffirm the expectation that national allegiance trumps all others" - and in the process rights can be trampled in the bid to tackle extremism ...

Yes, even while purporting to deplore Hansonism, the dog botherer couldn't resist kicking the fear and loathing terrorist can a little further down the road, brooding about real victims and real anxieties, because he can't give up the drug of Islamic terrorism ...

The logic is, if you will, Hansonesque, and it shows exactly why the dog botherer should write such an apologetic for Hansonism. When it comes to fundamental matters, he actually agrees with her ... shares her phobias and fears, her bigotry and prejudices ... and like her, he'll kick that terrorist can as hard as he can ...

Well we already have enough people deep in the Hansonist embrace ...

It's pathetic, and it's exactly that syndrome that a master of reality television can easily exploit ...

As for the rest of Murdoch la la land? 

Why it's a reality TV show as well ...


  1. But, butt, DP, national allegiance does trump all others.

    We tend to forget this because Christianity had already made its unconditional surrender to national laws and practices a few centuries ago - following on after the Enlightenment. Nobody in the world - save perhaps the odd psychopath - actually practices Christianity. The entire Old Testament with its plethora of ritual blood sacrifices, it's approval of slavery and of selling daughters and its stack of death penalties has just been junked. Think of it, today our 'national allegiance' prescribes that the penalty for adultery is 'no-fault divorce' whereas the OT prescribes 'stoning to death of the adulterous' (or was that only 'the adulteress' ?).

    Islam, of course, has never made such a surrender - at least not officially, but most Muslims simply no longer obey Sharia anyway - as most 'Christians' didn't practice Christianity either, even before the Enlightenment.

    So it goes.

    1. I have heard that the first rule of Sharia law is to obey the laws of the country in which one lives. I think the first rule of the magnificent white man christian civilization says to disrupt and disdain the laws of any country they can conquer, rape and pillage and then turn the conquered denizens into second class 'white' men.

    2. Hmmm. Well you can believe the magnificence of "white man christian civilization" if you wish, Anony, but forgive me if I don't.

      But as to Muslims, Sharia and civil law, I commend some thoughts to you.

      Firstly, an indication of who a Muslim must give obedience to:

      The following are some examples of rightful and righteous authority that is in harmony with the Quranic teachings:

      1- For a young boy/girl they should obey their parents who have authority over them during their young dependent years.

      2- For a wife, she must obey her husband (in righteousness) as God decreed in the Quran.

      3- For an employee, he/she must obey their boss who has authority over them, but only within the framework of the profession.

      4- For citizens, they must obey the established authorities (e.g. the courts, the police, etc). They must obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate God's law.
      (See: )

      That sounds pretty liberal, doesn't it. Now, for a bit of comparison:

      "Practicing Muslims many times overlook that they are not alone in this dilemma. We need to realize that the situation in which we find ourselves is not much different from that of Orthodox Jews, or, to a certain extent, conservative Christians. These other groups also believe in a moral law that originates from a Divine Being, and would not compromise what they believe is God's law for man-made law."
      ( )

      So you see, David Koresh was right not to obey the evil civil authorities. And so are Muslims, Jews and all Christians. And maybe even Hindus, Buddhists and Shintos - what d'ya reckon ?

    3. Nope I don't reckon you know much about Buddhism or Muslims. Do you have any actual acquaintances or friend of either persuasion?

    4. Wau, Anony, well that's just so impressive. I reckon you don't know much about humour or joking or irony. Do you have any actual acquaintances or friend who does ? Do they groan when you come into the room ?

      But ok, matey, I'll ask: if I quote actual Muslim sites written and populated by actual Muslims - such as the two I linked above - does that meanthat I, personally, don't actually need to have a Muslim friend or acquaintance ?

      But since you obviously can't read, let me repeat them here for you:

      Now the first of those is a site that calls itself 'True Islam', while the second is a site called '' and the post on the second site was written by someone claiming to be Dr. Yasir Qadhi. But you know that already because you checked out both sites, didn't you. And you got your Muslim acquaintances and friend to explain them to you. Yes ?

    5. Ah well, Anony, let your simple thoughts comfort you all the days of your life.

    6. Sheesh you are so fucnking patronising. I get it you old white men don't make friends easily. You are an old white man aren't you?

    7. "Buddhism or Muslims" require their theocracy to dominate as much as the rest. Buddhism more so.

  2. It seems to get ahead these days you adopt simian behaviour and display your bottom (if female) or buff up and turn yourself into something which resembles a damp newspaper when the ink has run.


    If you are a celebrity politician you give yourself a hi-viz hairstyle (Trump and Hanson) and say outrageous things with the intention to have such utterances end up in Bold Print (Trump and Hanson again). Oh, and you keep yourself in the spotlight's glare by performing like a sideshow alley performer on Unreality TV.

    Chris Kenny et al do not understand that. They keep writing about the evil Left.

    These old-timers are as outdated as antimacassars.

    Miss pp

    1. Oh, Miss pp, I haven't heard mention of antimacassars for decades. But then, I haven't heard, or seen, mention of Brylcream either. Kinda proves your point, I guess.

    2. GB - I'm sure Mrs J Howard protects the burgundy velour three-piece with lace doilies handed down from gran.
      Brylcream must be available still as I still occasionally spot a slide-rule part and full plaster down.
      Still the cream is no longer part of every man's valet collection.
      Also gone in the mists of time is the elderly gent who wore tweeds to ride his clanking bike. The trousers would be clipped and there would be a wooden fruit carton on the handle bars.
      Miss pp

    3. Liblab dress in matching neoliberal hats. The dog molester says, "People vote for Hanson not because they agree with every prescription but because she dares to talk about the problems." Well, not every problem either, but yes.

    4. Oh Miss pp, you talk straight into my nostalgia ... oh so very long since my bicycle trousers were clipped !

      And I not infrequently had a carton on my handlebars as I earned pocket money doing deliveries for the local greengrocer (and 'chemist'), But I was almost invariably in shorts in those days, so I just can't be sure I ever had clips and carton at the same time.


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