Nuts come out after the truth has bolted

Mike Carlton

October 1, 2011

The usual reactionaries have risen as one in defence of Andrew Bolt, the Melbourne columnist and village idiot, convicted on Wednesday for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act. An attack on freedom of speech, they howled. A dark day for democracy.

Since the verdict, Bolt himself has played the martyred victim, drenched in self-pity, a sickening spectacle.

His fellow Murdoch hack, Miranda Devine, invoked the spectre of Nazi concentration camps, thereby immediately losing the argument. The shadow attorney general, George Brandis, blathered about George Orwell’s 1984.

Most ludicrous of all, one Sinclair Davidson, a Melbourne economics professor and, predictably, a “Senior Fellow” at that sink of right wing propaganda, the Institute of Public Affairs, wants to scrap the law altogether and let “market forces” punish discrimination. This is not satire. He meant it.

What these savants ignore is that Bolt just got it wrong. That’s W-R-O-N-G. As Justice Moredecai Bromberg found, the columnist’s two offending emissions in the Murdoch Herald Sun were shot through with “gross errors”.

The bottom of Bolt’s rant was that pale-skinned Aborigines were more white than black, and should behave that way. Instead, they had decided in adult life to become “official” or “professional” blacks, thus muscling in on “other people’s glories” – jobs, preferment and prizes that should be reserved for proper Aborigines.

He sprayed special venom upon the academic Larissa Behrendt who, he claimed, had a German father. “Which people are ‘yours’, exactly, mein liebchen?” he sneered. Bolt clearly prefers his darkies dark.

In fact, Behrendt’s father was a black Australian. She – and the other eight plaintiffs in the case – were raised from infancy in Aboriginal culture and society. Given that crashing blunder, the rest of his stuff falls in a heap, exposed for the racist garbage it was.

The judge did not smother free speech. He skewered dud journalism.

Bolt’s parents were from Holland. If he believes that freedom of speech carries a licence to spear people for their ethnicity, he will not then object to me suggesting he would do better to quit the media and take up growing tulips and making cheese. Wearing clogs. Ah, the Lying Dutchman.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, Mynheer.

Mike Carlton is a columnist with The Age

Source

24 thoughts on “Nuts come out after the truth has bolted

  1. Stop! Are you denying that these “Aboriginals”, these professional “Aboriginal” activists, are mostly genetically White? With their fair skin, light eyes, and light hair? Are you that much of a wretched liar, and so pathologically opposed to the truth being told, that you’re actually denying that what Andrew Bolt is true? Are you that maniacal?
    This court decision, ultimately, has very little to do with any Aborigines. Be they genuine, or only fractionally so.
    This decision is clearly intended to set a precedent so as to stifle and silence the voices of Australians as the multiracialisation of Australia and the complete fracture of the Australian society is set into motion.
    Don’t pretend otherwise, because your rancid little site is an eager participabt in that gruesome process.
    EVERY sane person in this country knows full well that what Andrew Bolt has said is absolutely correct! It is obviously so. People have been getting sick of this being presented to them for some time.
    That you would dare chime in (true to form though) against those who’ve voiced their fully justified opinions of thise shameful court ruling again exposes your intentions.

    You dare mention facts, as well?
    As you continually dive and dart around to avoid them?
    Facts get right in the way of “multiculturalism”, and you know it.

    This court decision is a travesty, on many levels.
    It’s concern was never with any Aboriginals, nor is yours, however much you feign it so.
    For as we would surely suffer, terribly, in the destructive tide of multi-racial immigration, the Aboriginals…of any degree…will assuredly be annihilated!

    It’s always a front, that concern.
    For the aim of all of those behind mass immigration and multi-culturalism – from those at the top engineering it, to street level rats like yourself that enforce it – is the introduction of enormous numbers of foreign races, and the intoduction of radicaly divided foreign cultures.
    This court decision proves much of our legal community to now be outright enemies of the Australian people, hell bent on our gradual elimination and the radical deconstruction and transformation of society here.
    It’s worse, when enemies are at home, than abroad. Member of our legal fraternity’s concern should always be for the Australian people and our sovereign nation’s future.
    It’s shocking that our own once great legal system is being used against us now.
    These tyrants should be removed from office.

    No, this malicious court ruling ultimately has nothing at all to do with Aboriginals, or faux Aboriginals, whatsoever.
    It is cunningly designed to set a precedent, so as to extinguish dissent against worse to come!

      • MMU, I think you should impose a 200 word limit on bogan postings. Let’s face it, bogans with their limited faculties have at best, a meaningful contribution of about 10 words. I just wasted 10 seconds skimming the drivel above. I could have spent that time doing something more productive like… taking another bite of my shish kebab!

        • whenever i read scott or meretts drivel i cant help but imagine some right winger crying in anger as they desperatly mash the keyboard to express their rage at the whole world laughing at them and their failure to live as part of society.

    • So you think someone’s genetics dictates their culture completely and that there are no other factors involved?

      Also what are your thoughts on Journalists publishing blatant lies/misinformation in order to push a certain agenda?
      You seem to hate it when this site publishes what you think are lies so why are you not as angry when people like Andrew Bolt publish what are proven to be lies in a national newspaper?

      I hope your cognitive dissonance is not so crippling that you are able to formulate a reply to my simple questions. Thank you.

    • Scott-did you read the decision? Or have you just heard wha’ts being repeated by your Nazi friends?

      The decision, as this article shows, and has been repeated in many newspaper articles is that Bolt was wrong. It isn’t a matter of whether a person has more white genes than Aboriginal genes, but how they are raised. Bolt declared they were raised white, and chose to be black, when they were raised Aboriginal from birth. This was a mistake, and there has been no challenge by Bolt or New Ltd stating that Bolt was correct in his judgement.

      Look at the court records. What the case was based upon, ie that Bolt stated incorrectly that the plantiffs chose to be Aboriginal rather than white, and one plantiff had a German father, was entirely false. None of the defendants disagreed with these complaints. Open and shut case.

      Now, if you’re telling me that it doesn’t matter that Bolt was wrong in his statements of how the plantiffs were raised, or their parentage (Again-the defense did not argue on these points), but instead say that we should determine ethnicity not by the way you’re brought up in, but how you’re raised…..what does this mean for the future? Are you saying all children should be DNA tested at birth, to determine which ethnicity they should be raised as?

      Should Doctors be saying: “Well, your mother and father are both Aboriginal, but together there is a stronger German heritage. Therefore the child must be raised as an Aboriginal”

      Or, even worse: “Well, the father was English, and the mother Aboriginal, with some English in her. Therefore, even though the father isn’t around anymore, the child has to be an Australian, and have no Aboriginal heritage”

      Now let’s get to the ravings of a madman:
      “This decision is clearly intended to set a precedent so as to stifle and silence the voices of Australians as the multiracialisation of Australia and the complete fracture of the Australian society is set into motion.”

      Actually no. The judge himself stated that this decision would not be used to stifle discussion on multiculturalism or multiracialism, but instead stated that when you made statements about individuals in public reports, you check you get your facts right.

      It’s the same ruling that says I can’t write an article calling you a paedophile without checking it out first. Bolt didn’t even phone up the people in question to talk to them. All he did was a google search. A journalist, and that is what Bolt says he is, must do more to ensure he is writing accurate information.

      Now, if you disagree with that belief, and think we should write whatever we want, whether or not it’s incorrect, please let me know, and I’ll write an article calling you a paedophile.

      “EVERY sane person in this country knows full well that what Andrew Bolt has said is absolutely correct! ”

      Source please! Proof that the majority of Australians think Andrew Bolt was absolutely correct in his statement that: “One plantiff had a german father, and all chose to Aboriginal” (When the defendants did not in any way disagree with the fact that the plantiffs were raised from birth as Aborigines).

      Or are you going to say “I said Sane Australians, so that’s me and friends who think like me. So everyone who thinks like me agrees with me” ?

      “You dare mention facts, as well?
      As you continually dive and dart around to avoid them?
      Facts get right in the way of “multiculturalism”, and you know it.”

      Scott, you’ve been here a while. When have you EVER mentioned facts? EVER?

      “For as we would surely suffer, terribly, in the destructive tide of multi-racial immigration, the Aboriginals…of any degree…will assuredly be annihilated!”

      While we’re on the topic, you’re a guy who says Australia should be and must be white. So what is your future plan for Aborigines? As you say Australia must be white, it means you either plan to exterminate black Aborigines, or “breed the black out of them”-both of which would surely result in annihilation of the Aborigenes much faster than multiculturalism.

      Or am I wrong, and you want Aborigines to remain forever, in which case you are in favour of a multiracial, multicultural society? Which is it Scott? You want only a single race, a single culture, and have therefore plans to get rid of all Aborigines? Or you support the idea of Aborigines and Anglo-Australians sharing the same country, in which case you agree, in some degree, with multiculturalism and multiracialism? Which is it?

      “For the aim of all of those behind mass immigration and multi-culturalism – from those at the top engineering it, to street level rats like yourself that enforce it ”

      Please please please, Scotty, tell me, who are the demonic leaders at the top of this conspiracy? Is it the Jews again? Or the Socialists? Or the Commie-Nazis? Or have you been reading some Icke, and ready to announce the lizard people’s plans to rule the world?

      “Member of our legal fraternity’s concern should always be for the Australian people and our sovereign nation’s future.”

      So, just to be clear, Scott, you support newspaper columnists putting forward absolutely untrue information, without doing any research whatsoever, if it supports your views? Do I get the same rights? Do I get to put forward that you’re a Nazi paedophile because I don’t like you, without checking out if any of this is true?

      And I repeat-did you read the courts’ decision, or did you only read the far right scream about it? Did you see why the decision was made on behalf of the plantiff, or did the voices in your head just say “Aborigines always win. IT’S A CONSPIRACY!”

      Hell, did you even read the article that you’re commenting on? Or did you just see “Bolt” and then write your response from there?

  2. Scott, you miss the point. The point is you cannot publicly smear someone in a major newspaper, or any other form of press, by claiming a lie as a fact. Which is what Bolt did.

    If Mike Carlton had written a story saying that Andrew Bolt was in fact German, and a direct descendant of Adolph Hiltler, and said that this was an absolute fact, then I’m sure all the right wingers would be singing a different tune now…..

  3. …and here we see it yet again! Just the kind of evasive tactics, ignorance, nonsense, skewed viewpoints, hyperbole,and outright lies of some of those who think they can juggle both keeping their society going at the level that has afforded them a high quality of life AND recklessly acting to have their own society first undermined, then utterly destroyed! By any measure that should rate as some form of insanity, but I don’t think that qualifies for the reason or excuse here.

    • Scott you haven’t addressed any of the points made so please clarify. The question is: is it okay for a journalist such as Bolt to print lies? If your answer is yes can you please explain why.

      Thank you.

    • Scott-don’t be a hypocrite. I directly responded to your comments with questions which you have evaded, ignored, and otherwise paid no attention to. So I repeat:

      Did you read the decision? Or have you just heard wha’ts being repeated by your Nazi friends?

      Now, if you’re telling me that it doesn’t matter that Bolt was wrong in his statements of how the plantiffs were raised, or their parentage (Again-the defense did not argue on these points), but instead say that we should determine ethnicity not by the way you’re brought up in, but how you’re raised…..what does this mean for the future? Are you saying all children should be DNA tested at birth, to determine which ethnicity they should be raised as?

      Should Doctors be saying: “Well, your mother and father are both Aboriginal, but together there is a stronger German heritage. Therefore the child must be raised as an Aboriginal”

      Or, even worse: “Well, the father was English, and the mother Aboriginal, with some English in her. Therefore, even though the father isn’t around anymore, the child has to be an Australian, and have no Aboriginal heritage”

      Now, if you think we should write whatever we want, whether or not it’s incorrect, please let me know, and I’ll write an article calling you a paedophile.

      Proof that the majority of Australians think Andrew Bolt was absolutely correct in his statement that: “One plantiff had a german father, and all chose to Aboriginal” (When the defendants did not in any way disagree with the fact that the plantiffs were raised from birth as Aborigines).

      Or are you going to say “I said Sane Australians, so that’s me and friends who think like me. So everyone who thinks like me agrees with me” ?

      You’re a guy who says Australia should be and must be white. So what is your future plan for Aborigines? As you say Australia must be white, it means you either plan to exterminate black Aborigines, or “breed the black out of them”-both of which would surely result in annihilation of the Aborigenes much faster than multiculturalism.

      Or am I wrong, and you want Aborigines to remain forever, in which case you are in favour of a multiracial, multicultural society? Which is it Scott? You want only a single race, a single culture, and have therefore plans to get rid of all Aborigines? Or you support the idea of Aborigines and Anglo-Australians sharing the same country, in which case you agree, in some degree, with multiculturalism and multiracialism? Which is it?

      “For the aim of all of those behind mass immigration and multi-culturalism – from those at the top engineering it, to street level rats like yourself that enforce it ”

      Please please please, Scotty, tell me, who are the demonic leaders at the top of this conspiracy? Is it the Jews again? Or the Socialists? Or the Commie-Nazis? Or have you been reading some Icke, and ready to announce the lizard people’s plans to rule the world?

      So, just to be clear, Scott, you support newspaper columnists putting forward absolutely untrue information, without doing any research whatsoever, if it supports your views? Do I get the same rights? Do I get to put forward that you’re a Nazi paedophile because I don’t like you, without checking out if any of this is true?

      And I repeat-did you read the courts’ decision, or did you only read the far right scream about it? Did you see why the decision was made on behalf of the plantiff, or did the voices in your head just say “Aborigines always win. IT’S A CONSPIRACY!”

      Hell, did you even read the article that you’re commenting on? Or did you just see “Bolt” and then write your response from there?

      • That’s way too long for Snott to read, too many big words hurt his head you know.
        He has a long history of not answering any direct questions, instead preferring to post the internet equivalent of verbal diarrhoea.

    • Scott read your own rants, to see they are “evasive tactics, ignorance, nonsense, skewed viewpoints, hyperbole,and outright lies” that not answering is evasive tactics from someone who know they lied especially “EVERY sane person in this country knows full well that what Andrew Bolt has said is absolutely correct!”.

  4. Scotty is right! This is an attack on Australians by having Andrew Bolt convicted under Australian law!

    I’m some how also convinced immigrants are to blame for this somehow too…

  5. Scott why do people use the words “most” “lots” “majority” and in your case “EVERY” when they know they do not speak “most” “lots” majority” and “every” person? As I considered myself as that “every sane person” you mentioned and guess what you did NOT ask for my opinion to know, that what Andrew Bolt has said is absolutely WRONG!

  6. I wonder if the verdict would have caused as much hand-wringing if this was tried as a defamation case rather than a racial vilification case? After all, the articles in question did come across as being defamatory as well as racist, and – whilst I am not a lawyer – any reasonable person with even the vaguest concept of the legal system can see there is just as strong a case for defamation as there is for racism.

  7. Why do economists always want to defer every single issue, be it social, political, or well, anything that isn’t economics to the free market? I’m sorry economists, your paradigm doesn’t work for every single fucking thing on the planet.

  8. I understand the frustration when someone who is, say… only a quarter aboriginal genetically and they are raised in a white culture with a white family, decides to take advantage of aboriginal benefits and sits on their arse all day. However the people that Bolt spat his venom at were not these kinds of people. They were clearly intellectuals and professionals who used their benefits wisely, they are also very in touch with and proud of their aboriginal heritage. Bolt also fails to acknowledge that some “full blood” aboriginals can be quite light-skinned, especially if they are from a tribe in Victoria. Bolt should check his facts before going on an ignorant rant.

    • There are all sorts of issues surrounding the forced rape of many Aboriginal women and the forced removal of Indigenous children which prevents us from making a judgement about how an individual might define or not define their identity as Indigenous.

      Excellent article here from Mark Bahnisch on the recent Bolt case which explores that issue.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s