Surprise! Q&A audience not representative of Australian population.
You would never know it if you (foolishly) took a Q&A audience as representative of the voters of Australia. But it seems the PM, and Coalition government, are absolutely on the right tram (so to speak) in seeking to strip terrorists who claim to be Australians of their citizenship. They have the support of the vast majority of the electorate for the measure, as even begrudgingly acknowledged by yesterday’s Sneering Morning Herald.
Whilst in the parallel universe that is the pre-production meeting for the Q&A team, and in the patently unrepresentative swill (to borrow a former PM’s quip) that is a Q&A audience, a sentence strung together by Zaky Mallah, even if only partially grammatically correct and having the IQ of something approaching that of raw meat, attracts rapturous applause.
In the real world inhabited by actual voters, who actually work real jobs, for a real living, and pay real taxes, Zaky and Q&A just don’t stack up. Meanwhile, Steve Ciobo speaks the forthright truth and Tony Abbott puts forward policies agreed to by the vast majority of the electorate.
Could that have anything to do with the result of the last federal election? Have the ABC even noticed that outcome, or were they too preoccupied with the next gotcha moment, or promoting the Killing Season among their target audience (something akin to a CFMEU rally meets the next World Wildlife Fund fundraising cocktail party)?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-huge-support-for-stripping-sole-nationals-of-australian-citizenship-20150706-gi6416.html
PETA to confirm 1st non-human parliament candidate
Following the news that the Greens have endorsed Australia’s first transgender candidate for federal parliament, animal advocate group PETA have fast tracked an announcement confirming the first non-human candidate for parliament, a horse named Charlie.
XYZ has learned that Charlie, an attractive nine year old chestnut, will stand for the ‘bellwether’ seat of Eden-Monaro at the next election, against sitting member Peter Hendy, who stole the seat at the last election from stand again (and somewhat embittered) Labor candidate Mike Kelly.
Charlie had no comment on either Hendy or Kelly, but showed his contempt for the latter by producing an extraordinary stream of excrement that cleared campaign headquarters (a stable) for several minutes. Regaining his composure, and when asked for an estimation of his chances against sitting member Hendy, Charlie replied with a firm ‘neigh.’ On his thoughts about being the only non human in parliament, Charlie answered in a similar vein, with, ‘neigh, neigh, neigh.’
PETA are sure he will perform well in opposition, but concede Charlie needs more work in the policy advocacy and speech making areas. If Charlie can sneak into parliament on Greens preferences, PETA are hopeful he can bring animal rights to the forefront of the national political conversation, and even have tentative plans for an amendment to the Marriage Act, drawing on the ground breaking work of Professor Peter Singer in the area.
Despite these high ambitions, Charlie has a long way to go before he reaches Canberra. For one, he needs to find a way of being registered to vote, something PETA are already addressing in the High Court, with a planned challenge to Australia’s Human Rights laws, arguing that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 violates the civil rights of animals by denying them the right to vote.
If Charlie does make it onto the electoral roll and all the way to the nation’s parliament, his contributions are likely to present a major threat to the Greens, with Adam Bandt needing to find room on the cross benches for, not only a political rival of equal, if not superior, political acumen, but fresh hay, oats, and the odd apple.
Greek ‘yes’ vote is Russian Roulette (with fully loaded gun)
In Sunday’s referendum, over 60 per cent of Greek voters voted down the deal with the EU and its proposed bailout package.
Commentators have stated that this, and recent events see Greece drift into uncharted territory.
“Uncharted” may be correct, but whatever territory it is, it will not be very conducive to human life (and flourishing). The celebrations in Greece in the wake of the ‘no’ vote victory mask the ironic fact that Greece has opted to play Russian roulette with the EU with a fully loaded gun.
Due to Greece’s refusal of the EU bailout, the EU Central Bank has announced it will not be providing additional funds to Greek banks. As a result of the Greek decision, Greek banks will run out of money over the next couple of days.
As Greeks celebrate in the streets this week over the ‘no’ vote victory, these celebrations could turn to riots and civil unrest this time next week as Greeks run out of money, food and medicine. The humanitarian crisis could be immense.
Sadly the Greek government, and its people have brought this tragedy onto themselves, a tragedy this is becoming increasing absurd and self-defeating.
Whilst Greece plays out its drama on the world stage, it seems intent on drawing not only the European Union into its performance, but the whole world.
This flag ended slavery
In reflecting on events in America over the last few weeks, it is worth examining some history, and the way we remember that history.
This year marks 150 years since the end of the American Civil War. Although, as Apu Nahasapeemapetilon points out, it had numerous causes, “economic factors, both domestic and international,” it was ultimately fought over the issue of slavery. The northern Union, led by the Republicans, the political party specifically established to defeat slavery, defeated the southern, Democrat, slave-holding Confederacy. Slavery remains a stain on American history and its conscience, as it does for nearly every country, every civilisation, in the history of humanity.
But America remains the only country, the only civilisation in the history of humanity, to go to war, with itself, at the cost of 620 000 lives, to destroy slavery.
The issue of slavery is used today by the anti-American left to challenge the principles and philosophy on which America was founded, its founders, and its constitution. The argument is made: if, as the Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal,” why did this not apply to African slaves? Fair call. But (without dwelling on the practical considerations of the time,) no other political foundation, no other political philosophy, could have led, or has led, to the decision to go to war with oneself to end slavery.
A myth which needs countering is that America’s prosperity, white prosperity, was founded on the back of slavery. This is complete nonsense. Slavery existed in the South, and what economic benefit could have been derived from it was completely wiped out by Union armies, which devastated the South in the last months of the Civil War. America’s biggest economic boom occurred in the decades after the Civil War, when the Industrial Revolution turned the North East into an industrial powerhouse, and the free market allowed the best of the best to thrive.
This becomes important when considering the battle of ideas in two areas. Firstly, the Confederate Flag is under attack as a symbol of slavery in the wake of the Charlestown massacre, and the debate surrounding this will continue to be complex. But what is very important, and very simple, is that the American flag, the Stars and Stripes, under which the armies of The Union fought, is the flag that defeated slavery. It is also the flag that defeated Nazism and Communism. The American flag is the symbol of freedom, and those who attack it as something else are dead wrong.
Secondly, the concepts of “white privilege” and “white guilt,” once the domain of effete of progressive academics, has entered the mainstream. But if we consider that practically every civilisation on earth holds guilt for slavery, for war, for expropriation; when we understand that the principles of Classical Liberalism, the principles on which America, (and Australia,) were founded, are the principles which led to the end of slavery in America; this means that The United States of America is the first country, and white people are the first people, in the history of humanity to make the decision, of their own volition and at tremendous cost, to end slavery; we therefore understand that the concepts of “white privilege” and “white guilt” are both fabricated, and a complete inversion of reality.
Questions and Interruptions
Following a review of the ABC’s flagship political affairs show Q&A, XYZ has learned that a new format for the popular program is to be implemented. Rather than conceal its political bias in undergraduate ‘gotcha’ moments, snide remarks from the chair, and the stacking of the panel and audience, the new format will see Q&A upfront and proud of its political culture, in a bid for transparency and integrity. From next week, XYZ has learned, the Q&A panel will be selected according to longstanding, but usually denied, ABC preferences and cause celebre:
The first panel in the new Q&A regime is to feature:
Fr Rod Bower of the Gosford Anglican Church: on ‘signs with changeable letters’ why every home should have one, and why I wished I had paid more attention in English classes at Primary School, especially those on spelling and the appropriate placing of apostrophes.
Khaloud Sharrouf*: on why and how ‘the West’ forced me to leave my life as an oppressed welfare recipient in Sydney and comp
elled me to take up arms for Islamic State, throw homosexuals off high towers, behead Syrian soldiers, and enslave Yazidi girls.
Tanya Plibersek: token Labour female
Edward Snowdon: on how betraying your country’s secrets and endangering its security, and the lives of those in its intelligence services, can make you an international media star too – so long as you enjoy Moscow on mild winter mornings at minus 40 celcius, and vodka
Malcolm Turnbull: because we have to have one of them on and he is the least offensive
Any employee of Newscorp or anyone from the IPA stupid enough to come on the show: because every show needs its villainous hate figure
The audience will reflect the diversity of modern Australia as understood by the ABC, and be comprised entirely of those attending the Melbourne University Socialist Alternative Monday evening barbecue on the south lawn – please note the special requests – no pork sausages, see the Queer Officer for Gay and Lesbian ‘safe’ spaces, consider ‘jazz hands’ if you must break into applause when one of our dear comrade’s speaks, and make sure you wear your &%$# Tony Abbot T-shirts.
In an innovative, but entirely appropriate, gesture, host Tony Jones will not be required to give a pretence of impartiality, but will endeavour to interrupt any panellist from the Coalition parties, and any Newscorp journalist or IPA employee, a minimum of twice per sentence, and will seek to set a new record for interruptions by intervening, not only mid sentence, but mid-syllable, with a riposte like the following – ‘Can I just bring you back to the question there, because I’d really like to get the audience jeering you at this point, and I’m under no obligation now to conceal my utter contempt for you and your views.’
The new format is to be renamed ‘Questions and Interruptions.’
* The producers wish to conform that, whilst Mr Sharrouf has taken part in armed conflict, in apparent war crimes, and posed for family photographs with the severed heads of enemy combatants, an extensive search of his social media profile confirms that there is no evidence whatsoever that he has ever sent a misogynist tweet.
Australia’s most unpopular man free to criticize much loved Australian of the Year.
There are few benefits to being Australia’s least popular man; however former leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mark Latham, has found a silver lining to this particularly dark cloud. Long-time enemy of the right, since leaving politics Latham has published a number of attacks on both sides of politics and aired dirty laundry of his former party. Having no friends left he is now free to speak the most unpopular of truths.
From his unassailable position of a social and political outcast Latham is free to criticize the most holy of sacred cows, that paragon of womanhood, Australian of the Year Rosie Batty, and feminist ideology.
Who but the most unlovable of Australians would feel comfortable to raise the absurdity of using the death of a male child to campaign to prevent violence against adult women? Who else could mention the distasteful commercialization of tragedy, a mother cashing in on the death of her son with a lucrative contract with an entertainment company? And only the most unpopular of men could weather the repercussions from defending men as a class. Saying that most men are not a danger to women is too taboo for anyone in good standing in the community to risk.
As well as being free to truthfully speak about these issues, being one of the most hated political figures of our time has enabled Mark Latham, a man, to do the unthinkable and voice suggestions on how family violence can be better addressed. Surprisingly current methods, which target non-violent men, and ask them to affirm that they’ve stopped beating their wives, may not actually make anyone safer. Mark proposes that rather than starting from a place of general androphobia and then massaging statistics to slander all men, we could instead use data to actually identify, then rehabilitate or remove those few individuals who are responsible for the majority of family violence.
Naturally fearing that effective solutions to family violence may be discovered, feminist organizations, acting in defence of their largest revenue source were quick to attack. However, as they have seen, dragging the name “Mark Latham” through the mud just isn’t effective. He was already wallowing in it.
We suspect that they’ll next try unleashing the white knights. But as everyone knows, Mark is partial to a bit of biffo and would probably relish the discourse being taken down to that level.
So while no one can love him, it’s hard to deny that Mark Latham, a man no one would associate with willingly, still has his uses.
Greece: From tragedy to absurdity
Over the last few days, the Greek financial tragedy has become absurd.
Over the last few days, the Greek government has passed the EU deadline to strike a deal, and the nation has now defaulted on its loan payments.
The arrogant and obstinate socialist government has crippled the Greek economy which this year, was starting to return to growth. Banks are only allowing the withdrawal of 60 Euros a day (if at all), and some businesses are now paying their staff with food rather than money. News papers are running out of paper for print, and the country risks exhausting its supply of food and medicine.
Of course, the socialist government it already hot on blaming the EU for all its woes. It seems that everyone is to blame – from the EU, to creditors and indeed capitalism itself, with the lone exception being themselves.
Let’s be honest, Greece has been playing the EU for a fool for years. German workers have been subsidizing Greece’s poor productivity, and have been working on later in life to pay for Greece’s early retirement pensions. The recent actions by the Greek government are just more of the same.
The EU has been bending over backwards to strike a deal and resolve this Greek debt mess. It does not want the Greek economy to fail, which would put the whole EU at risk. The EU is putting every effort to bail our Greece, and to help them to restructure their economy (which is long overdue) address the corruption which is rife, and assist the nation to return to growth.
Unfortunately, the Greek government refuses to take the medicine, and to be accountable for its decisions.
If Greek political leaders continue at their games, they place the whole EU at serious risk. But what they don’t seem to realise, is that they also risk a complete collapse of the Greek economy and nation, and the potential for Greece to find itself numbered in the esteemed company of failed states.
Government funding tipping the playing field in the left’s favour.
Following on from a discussion we had yesterday with a delightful fellow who later removed his whole post, we thought we would share this little snippet from an article from The Guardian some months back:
“It must be some concern to Murdoch’s executives that the ABC has already captured 42% of the digital news market since Gillard expanded the organisation’s charter into online content publication.”
Surely it should be a concern to Australians that a government funded organisation with its own secret agenda, in breech of its charter, has such influence!!
XYZ Weekend Arts: Why you should present music to your children in chronological order, part 1.
Having children is the most tremendous and rewarding responsibility one can have as a human being. As a music lover, I consider myself a guardian of two of the pinnacles of Western Civilisation- the “Classical” music tradition, and the rock music of our modern era. An understanding of how each musical style and idea led onto the next, or was rejected by the next, over the course of centuries for the classical, or through generations for rock, can be passed down to our children if you follow this approach:
Present music to them chronologically over the course of their lives.
Children’s brains are at their most elastic, and ears their most receptive, in the early years. Of course there will come a time when there is little you can do or say to make them understand just how God-awful the noise they listen to is, but while they are little, you still have a chance to shape their musical tastes. You can set a musical programme for when you are in the car, for bedtime, bath-time, as long as you don’t take the whole thing too seriously, and understand that your offsprings’ minds are their own.
In part one, I will cover the revelation of “Classical Music.”
I propose that mothers and fathers start playing music from the Renaissance Era, (c1400-1600) from the moment of conception. Sure, an unborn baby can only hear after about 20 weeks, and only low pitched sounds at first, but the vibrations will no doubt be helpful, and instil a sense of rhythm from the very beginning. As the foetal ear and brain is developing, so it will experience the development of early Western music – composers nutted out whether they considered 3rds or 4ths to be the more consonant, and evolved from a modal approach to the more diatonic harmonies of the 17th century.
Leaving the womb is traumatic for all involved, so make the transition as unequivocal as possible for the newborn, by introducing it immediately to the music of the Baroque. The Wiggles, High 5 and Yo Gabba Gabba are important too, but you will be amazed how infants respond to fugues and the forerunners of sonata form. Play Handel’s Water Music at bath time, and your child will quickly learn the association. Along with the likes of Bach, Telemann and the 555 keyboard sonatas of Scarlatti, little Johnny will have consumed some of the most complex music in the Western Canon when his brain is easiest to program.
After the first birthday, proceed to the Classical Era. It isn’t always appreciated so well in our era of “classical pop,” when music from both the Classical and Baroque are often put in the same, quaint basket. But after nearly 2 years of listening to almost exclusively contrapuntal music, you will appreciate the clarity, simplicity and beauty which distinguished the Classical Era from its predecessors, and you will truly understand why the composers and royal courts of the time found it a breath of fresh air. Be sure your children hear the music of Bach’s children, as well as the giants Haydn and Mozart. Mozart’s operas could be especially useful as your child learns to speak, especially for his German.
When your child enters the terrible twos, let him listen to two masters, for the entire year; Beethoven and Schubert. Beethoven, the greatest, is an obvious choice. The often stormy mood of his music will match that of your little terror, but the terror will also absorb his depth, his insight and his genius. Schubert, if he hadn’t died so tragically young, could have risen to be Beethoven’s equal. Also, just as Beethoven provided the bridge between the Classical and the Romantic eras, Schubert’s music is its own genre.
At the age of three, as the youngster starts to string longer sentences together, the longer melodic lines and richer harmonies of the Romantic Era will accompany him. The likes of Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, Grieg, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Liszt will drive his senses wild, as a three year old mind wanders at the whir of notes surrounding him. Be particularly sure to play him the music of Chopin. His is one of the purest expressions of the budding Nationalism of the day, and his unique tone will hone your child’s ears more than any other.
At four, the multiple paths of the Twentieth Century can be revealed. Hold off on the impressionists until now. He will need this to cushion the stark blow of the Russians. Hold back on Rachmaninov until now too- he is a symbol of what could have been achieved had the socialism of the Serialists not infected music- it is this intellectual muck which is to blame for the noiseless rubbish churned out by composition schools today. But jazz, and the Great American Songbook, show what can be achieved when reason and the free market are celebrated.
If your strapping young sapling goes to school at 5, it is time to move on to the rock of the post-war era. If 6, another year of twentieth century music will be all the more beneficial. Again, a child of five will not be able to articulate or understand, let alone play the greatest music of the last 600 years, but his brain will have been formed and his ear trained to appreciate it.
This idea is meant to be far from proscriptive, and it must be noted that this theory has never been tested. In fact, given the history of eccentric egotists who have developed rigid systems of learning in order to achieve utopian goals, I would like to make it clear that my tongue is placed firmly in my cheek. Just take this as food for thought, that we are proprietors of our cultural heritage, and there are multiple, creative ways of passing on this heritage, and pride in this heritage, to the next generation.
In part two, I will cover how to present rock music to children in their school years, and say a little more with regard to how both classical and rock can provide a doorway to understanding the philosophy, politics, and history of our culture.
Editor’s note: The XYZ takes no responsibility for irreparable damage caused should this turn out to be not such a good idea.
Lefties embroiled in censorship orgy
In 2004, the whole of the Australian left was going ga-ga about Mark Latham. The ABC loved him, the Labor faithful loved him. Students and academia loved him for calling John Howard an arse-licker, and George W Bush “the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory.”
But then the last 10 years happened.
He is now embroiled in a new controversy, after having told a domestic violence victim to shut up. In response, it has been suggested in Mamamia that Latham’s comments should themselves “be kept private” and are “undignified to expose.”
This whole episode works on so many levels, we don’t quite know where to begin. The left’s compulsion to silence others is on overdrive. And as usual, it just makes you wonder about the judgement of the Labor Party.
It’s your XYZ.
Libs gay conscience vote: Greens ask, What is a ‘conscience’?
Pressure continues to mount on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to allow Liberal Party members a conscience vote on a soon to be tabled, same-sex marriage bill.
Spokesperson Harphin Astekree, for the Australian Greens leader Richard di Natale, today condemned comments made by Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, who stated that those in the party openly supporting same-sex marriage should step down from the ministry. Harphin stated,
“This comment by Senator Abetz was completely inappropriate. At the Australian Greens, all of us support the move towards marriage equality. It is one of our core environmental policies that must be accepted before aspirants can become a member of our party,”But when questioned by XYZ on what a conscience vote on same-sex marriage would mean for the Australian Greens, Harphin replied, “We are not quite sure what the word “conscience” means. It’s a word that we are not familiar with within our party.” Harphin did note, however, that the Greens approve how conscience votes give the Greens extra votes from the Coalition and the ALP on some of their favorite issues, although they are perplexed as to how a group can continue to exist when it includes a diversity of opinions. Harphin then confirmed that the Australian Greens, “Will commission a study into the meaning of the word ‘conscience’, right after our study on the word ‘vote’ is completed.” Stay tuned to XYZ for updates.
Poll: 1 in 5 people too scared to discuss trans-racial issues.
The results of the latest XYZ Viewer Poll have revealed a disturbing trend toward close-mindedness and self-censorship affecting nearly a third of the population.
In response to the question “If both gender and race are social constructs, and you can change your gender, surely you can change your race?” 21% of respondents said they would not touch the question with a 50 foot poll. Disturbingly, a further 11% of people are so bigoted that they think it is racist simply to ask the question.
The XYZ is relieved and refreshed to learn that over half the population still approaches the issue with a strong dose of common sense, with 56% of respondents choosing the option, “No, race is race, gender is gender, neither are interchangeable. Furthermore, while we think it a little silly that 12% answered in the affirmative to the original question, and actually consider Rachel Dolezal a “pioneer,” The XYZ has to acknowledge that at least they hold views which are consistent.
It’s your XYZ.
Bill Whittle: Democrats’ Horrible Racist Past.
Bill Whittle demolishes several myths in this video.
The first myth is that it is Republicans who are somehow connected to slavery, racism, and the Confederate flag, which were all well and truly the property of the Democratic Party. The second myth is that “the racists have switched sides.” Whittle demonstrates instead how the Democrats changed tactics, and now effectively keep African Americans enslaved on the vote-buying plantation.
http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/pin-the-tale-on-the-donkey-democrats-horrible-racist-past-11106/
Not drowning, fuming: Lefties want would-be victims to self-harm.
If the victims now think that they can make victims of themselves and be rewarded, they will make victims of themselves and be rewarded. The Greens know this. Jihad Aly knows this. The would-be victims know this.
Note: they stopped drowning off the north west when they were no longer rewarded for it.
http://junkee.com/waleed-aly-went-after-new-laws-that…/60419
Artificial Intelligence has a lot to learn
A storm has raged on the internet after a Google photo app designed to automatically identify and name uploaded photos has mistakenly applied titles which made people “uncomfortable.”
A photo of Rachel Dolezal was titled, “an obviously abused victim who has been made to feel ashamed of what and who she is by society, but has nevertheless reached the correct conclusion given the environment and era in which she lives.”
The same app reportedly labelled Caitlyn Jenner “a big boned, broad shouldered, magnificently athletic woman who recently appeared on the front cover of Vogue magazine.”
This is not the first time Google has had to iron out bugs in its app, which in May, tagged US President Barak Obama as a “White-African-American whose policies and rhetoric have inflamed racial relations in the United States.”
A Google Spokesperson told the BBC, “We’re appalled and genuinely sorry that this happened.” He promised that they were working hard to make sure this would never happen again, by “teaching artificial intelligence artificial concepts of self identification and zeitgeist political correctness.”
It’s your XYZ.
Thatcher was right? Thatcher was always right.
It has been noted widely, but deserves repeating again, and again. Margaret Thatcher predicted not only that a single currency in a European Union would become unworkable, but the means by which this would occur.
She argued that it was ludicrous to expect vastly different economies at completely different levels of development to be able to function under a single currency. Specifically, she foresaw that under such a scheme, the weaker economies of Europe would not be able to use inflationary measures to help deal with inevitable increasing levels of debt, which would lead to default and devastation of their economies.
In one of her autobiographies, The Downing Street Years, (1993) she articulates this:
“We had arguments which might persuade both the Germans — who would be worried about the weakening of anti-inflation policies — and the poorer countries — who must be told that they would not be bailed out of the consequences of a single currency, which would therefore devastate their inefficient economies.”
It has been said over the years that one of the reasons the left hated Margaret Thatcher is because she was so often right (no pun intended). Another insight which has been revealed recently is that the problem with the inevitable is that it always seems to happen.
Her concerns regarding the democratic deficit and loss of sovereignty to European central banks and unrepresentative bodies in Brussels have also been confirmed. She pointed out the danger that “80% of Britain’s economic decisions will be made in Brussels.”
While Great Britain has been able to avoid this, the Greeks have not. We must not pretend that this is anything but their own fault, as much as some will try to argue that it is the fault of the lenders– effectively, making the argument that it is their fault because they should have known Greece would never play by the rules. But what is effectively happening, regardless of the astuteness of the Germans and the idiocy of the Greeks, is that economic policy in Greece is now being dictated by Germany.
In articulating a simple patriotism and the universal virtues of the free market, Margaret Thatcher was able to protect Great Britain from the worst. Not only is Margaret Thatcher one of the greatest human beings to have lived in the 20th Century – it was her, along with Ronald Reagan, who ultimately defeated Communism – she also identified and predicted the folly of the great socialist experiment that is the EU.
One can draw a parallel between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the imminent collapse of the Euro- there is only so long that the productive areas of an economy, or productive regions of a union, can subsidise the unproductive, before something has got to give.
GetUp! and Greens confirm: ABC is mouthpiece of the left
Following the lead of the Australian Greens, the left wing organisation, ‘GetUp!’ has launched a campaign to fund political action in electorates where recent criticism of the ABC is likely to have an impact.
This action by GetUp!, complementing the Greens’ ‘Hands off our Aunty’ campaign, is more evidence that the ABC is not only biased, but as a media organisation, has become hopelessly, and perhaps irredeemably politicised. The ABC is supposed to be an independent and impartial media service for all Australians, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that this is not the case.
What is becoming crystal clear is that the ABC is only serving one constituency in Australia, and that is the ‘progressive’ Left. Not only is the ABC only serving the left, the desperate campaigns launched by the Greens and GetUp! reveal that the ABC acts as an important mouthpiece and advocate for their policy agenda. Without the ABC’s billion dollar plus budget provided by tax payers, and vast resources to disseminate the so called ‘progressive’ agenda, the left would have to rely on its own resources and funds to promote its political platform.
Of course, this is why the Greens and GetUp! have been so quick to criticise calls for the ABC to be accountable to its charter, to all Australians and tax payers, and have launched their campaigns defending the ABC and its bias.
If GetUp!, Greens and left wing Australians want a media organisation that is going to serve their political interests and act as their mouthpiece, shouldn’t they establish one and pay for it themselves?
Of course they should. It is highly inappropriate that the national broadcaster, which is required to be impartial, and is paid for by all Australian tax payers, be appropriated by the political left to serve its purpose.
But this is yet another shining example of the leftist propensity to take other people’s money and resources, with a sense of entitlement, and to use them for their own ends.
ABC Protests Gay Rights
With an election fast approaching, the ABC and its coalition partner The Greens, yesterday launched an offensive targeted at its rapidly multiplying Islamic vote. Up and coming Greens lobbyist and ABC media darling Zaky Mallah is rumored to be the brain-child of the protests.
The XYZ understands that the Greens pollsters are confident that they have the support of the LGBTI movement and the church of Climate Changers, and have appeased their core base by explaining that this is not a question of self identity and rights, rather a question of Australia’s tolerance for the deeply held values of our booming Islamic community.
The move is not unprecedented, as the ABC has previously championed Halal and is an advocate for uncontrolled border migration through Australia’s notoriously dangerous north west leaky taxi route.
An ABC insider explained: “It is the next logical move for the ABC – if it’s Halal, it’s Sharia, so we cannot with a clean conscience offend our brothers through support of non Sharia compliant practices such as Gay Marriage.”
Stepping up its campaign, the ABC’s agenda setting Q&A mouthpiece has announced its latest panel, which is made up of Islamic council leaders, Sharia law experts, an acquitted terrorist, convicted terrorist David Hicks, Ian Thorpe and Bruce McAvaney.
No formal statement has been issued by the Australian Government, though the US President issued his admiration for the ABC and the Greens, and the move has received rare support from Middle East leaders include the esteemed Caliph himself. The Greens are preparing a communique via their ABC to remind voters of how much this adds to their foreign policy credentials.