When hatred blinds its sufferers


haucer—not the great one born in 1343—writes more about the Indonesia/Australia spying revelation that is no revelation to the worldly. The resultant mistrust, however, and deep resentment toward the ABC and its director Mark Scott, is put into a perspective by exposing further collateral damage caused by those who seek to punish the Abbott government for a decisive victory at the polls.

Patriotic and decent Australians can only hope that the damage done to international reputations was an oversight by the zealots and was not a future template of a mind devouring hatred seemingly beyond reclamation.


“Pathetic”, describes the rabble of Neanderthals burning cheap computer printouts of the Australian flag outside our Embassy in Jakarta recently.
Equally pathetic was Indonesia’s blackmail attempt to subdue Australia into bootlicking servility—again.

The UK Guardian, the Australian Guardian, Fairfax media, the ABC and SBS, all comrades in lockstep from the dedicated Left, deemed it clever to publish stolen and untested information from an American traitor whose motive, ideology and psychological condition is unknown. Well known, however, is that every mature person on earth understands the need for collecting intelligence in today’s world of terrorism—except the above-mentioned media and ABC director Mark Scott, it seems.

Read on


It’s time to defund the ABC and let them fend for themselves

ABC Logo

It’s fairly obvious, even to the casual observer, that the taxpayer funded ABC is completely out of control.

I know there is talk about selling it, but I seriously doubt there would be anyone who’d be interested in acquiring it (mind you, what a laugh it would be if News Ltd bought’em!)

Given the ABC completely disregards its commitment to “deliver content with integrity, diligence and transparency and to act in the interests of citizens” the Abbott Gov’t should put the ABC on a one way path to full privatisation.

According to the ABC’s 2013 annual report, the ABC was allocated $1,030.2 million in the May 2012 Federal Budget and $12.1 million in the 2012–13 Additional Estimates process, totalling $1,042.3 million for the 2012–13 year (The May 2013 Federal Budget maintained the ABC’s funding base, provided a $90 million loan from government over three years to assist with the cash flow requirements of the Melbourne Accommodation Project, and provided additional funding for journalism, digital content delivery, increased digital television coverage, and ANZAC Centenary programming.)

Surprisingly, the ABC also received $158.2 million from other sources, including ABC Commercial.

So here’s what I’d do going forward. As I’m a rather generous person, I’d cut the ABC’s 2014-2015 gov’t funding allocation by 10% from $1,042.3 million to $938.07 million and keep reducing the ABC’s taxpayer funded allocation each year by 10% (if the Gov’t have to amend the ABC Act to allow the ABC to advertise then they should do this ASAP).

So when we hit the 2024 – 2025 financial year, the ABC will be 100% privately funded and then they can do and say whatever the hell they like.


No wonder Fairfax Media is going broke…70% of SMH readers polled think the ABC is “an excellent and essential service, they deserve more funding.”

SMH ABC poll


Those bed wetters over at ShutUp! GetUp! have put up a petition to “Save the ABC.”

Their argument that the ABC needs to be saved…”free to remain fair and balanced.”

Foxtrot me dead…


Feel free to tell us your thoughts.



Follow Andy on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

The bloke who leaked the ABC salary details should be given a medal

Over in ABC land…Edward Snowden good…Rikki Lambert bad.

Naturally, no one at the ABC was stood down either for the security leak.

Via (of course) ABC News


A political adviser has been suspended by the Family First Party in South Australia for leaking confidential ABC salary details to News Limited.

Staffer Rikki Lambert has confirmed to the ABC he gave the pay details to The Australian newspaper.

It published salary details of key ABC staff last week and state breakdowns were published in other News Limited papers.

The ABC acknowledged last week it gave the pay information in error to a South Australian MP.

Family First's Robert Brokenshire later confirmed it came with information he had requested about corporation staffing.

I really hope Mark Scott is losing heaps of sleep over the salary leak, and that he might just for a nano second feel for the mess he caused our clandestine security services.



Follow Andy on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

Media Watch – Paul Barry’s biased bile

The Editor, Menzies House.

Although a bit late, I nonetheless refer to your post October 1 on this site, Blatant bias at your expense—complain like hell.

BarryAs a taxpayer of no small sum, I object “like hell” to the biased nastiness spewed forth by Paul Barry on his ABC Media Watch segment identified in the above story.

What the ABC, and Mr Barry in particular need to understand is that the majority of Australian taxpayers are opposed to leftist ideology and as such are seriously at odds with not all, but most of our ABC’s productions. There is no regard for balance as required in their editorial policy. It is obvious that a cabal of socialist elitists are calling the piper’s tune and us who pays for all.

While the tears of the loser is like honey on the lips of the winners, it is hard not to feel a little tug of sympathy for Paul Barry despite his displayed bias. The cause he promoted, the Party he followed, the religion he worshipped are as nothing now. His global warming God has feet of clay—intransigent.

Its evidence-free world, its constant rewriting, its failed predictions, its laughable explanations for the fact that no rise in temperatures for sixteen years, is now increasingly a joke. Only the unintelligent or those with ulterior interest care about it.

In impotent rage Barry writhes beggingly for someone, it must be a conservative, withour rebattal, to savage on his nine minutes ad nauseam. At first a partly impartial and often humorous examination of other media, but now, and regrettably so, it presents nakedly as the Australian Pravda. Scolding, excoriating, and despairing at people who have an opinion an inch to the right of Stalin.

It is the equivalent of cheap plonk or the syringe for the wailing losers.

His latest target is Alan Jones—a media personality, like him or not, with fifty or sixty times the viewers of Media Watch, a dream they could only hope to claim.

Barry’s ranting done in the approved ABC style, supercilious smiles, pitying remarks, sad shakes of the head. The only thing missing is a shoulder-shimmy, which he dare not while following his pre-written remarks on the teleprompter. Impotence is what he feels and his vitriolic rage is overt.

We have a new government and I do not advocate the disbanding of our ABC because only public funds can support their many fine productions. But I do believe that employees like Mr Barry have lost their way on the pathway of fairness and good journalism. Only his small audience approves.

To be sent packing might be the only way to rid people like Mr Barry of such deep-seated bile that no commercial enterprise would entertain for one moment.

Please comment on my letter.


Penelope I. M. Pulchritude.

To view Barry's nasty work

David Suzuki and Q&A—who conned who?

New MH2

For a long time Q&A with Tony Jones has been seen as just another ABC production of farce at the majority of taxpayers’ expense. And no finer example was the recent waste of one hour in a person’s life was the occasion of Canada’s global warming guru Dr David Suzuki.

Skating skilfully in and out of the ABC’s editorial policy, Q&A claim to have a balanced audience in equal concoctions of Greens, Labor, and Liberals. Even a lobotomised monkey could fool the selection process about their political bent as they do resulting in a predictable majority of salivating hyenas programmed to dine on conservatives before they utter a word.

Not present that night was the customary “ABC balance” of five from the left versus two from the right as the panel was of Jones and Suzuki alone. Bill Gates was the only other guest to enjoy that importance. The subject was Suzuki’s pet income generator, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the mob that assures us that the planet is stuffed and every bastard on it will be broiled alive or drowned in rising seas.


Suzuki, an expert on fruit flies, gave wonderful television entertainment back in the 1960s, but his performance on Q&A was akin to a muddled old moose rutting on the Arctic Tundra. Sadly, his ignorance of the subject was astounding.

Suzuki did peddle the current IPCC mantra that 97% of scientists agree that we are the cause of our impending doom. The IPCC’s new/old/rehashed report claims that 97% of scientists say things are much worse than first thought—the lie is perpetuated.

However, questions will arise for IPCC. According to Christopher Monckton, their data files as of May, list 11,944 reports. Of 4,014 summary reports only 64 of those forecast doom and almost half of those express doubts. We can expect a lot more about this as those who seek scientific truth examine the new 5th Assessment. The IPCC should explain exactly how they arrived at their 97% consensus.

Meanwhile, Q&A’s propping up David Suzuki might have been done without instruction of Suzuki’s past about which many observers question his right to self-acclaimed climate authority and benevolence. Dedicating ones life to saving the planet for fellow man is noble—Suzuki tells us that. But his free reign to spout babble virtually unchallenged on Australia’s taxpayer funded airwaves is wrong and just another reason to question the objectivity and viability of the ABC and or its management.

A few years ago Suzuki insinuated that scientists who did not support his theories were mostly promoting large corporations. When asked the basis of his funding, he complained bitterly that “corporations have not been interested in funding us.” That surprised many as the climate scare doctrine was then in its infancy, and uncheckable data was easily swallowed.

However, the David Suzuki Foundation 2006 annual report listed more than 50 corporate donors that read like the “A” list to Bill Clinton’s black-tie dinner. Microsoft, Toyota, IBM, Bell Canada, Warner Brothers, Canon and the Bank of Montreal are just a few that must have slipped the doctor’s mind.

But, in stark contrast to this Gaia embracing rescuer of all mankind was Suzuki’s acceptance of the donor EnCana Corporation, a big player in oil sand development and natural gas bores. ATCO, the largest gas distributor in Alberta donated, as did the Ontario Power Corporation running several coal-burning generator stations and at least three nuclear installations—Suzuki’s avowed planet-wreckers.

In October 2012 Suzuki told students at the John Abbott College in Quebec that society suffers from an unsustainable fixation with money. “Money isn’t what matters,” he trumpeted to spellbound students. Many would wonder at his fee for $30,000 that was paid prior to engagement—saving the world is expensive.

During global warming apex, Suzuki aimed his campaign at children. “Climate change has forced Santa to pack up his sleigh and find a new home,” he told shocked and distraught children on frequent television plugs claiming to be reporting live from the North Pole, “where Santa will live?” Donations for “Santa” were directed to the David Suzuki Foundation where lots of books could be purchased. In fact, the foundation offers eight innovative ways in which donors can provide—via your will is one of them.

Canadian Alex G. Tsakumis wrote, “…It’s the kind of pathetic rubbish that could only come from David Suzuki, a fruit fly biologist by trade, and the reigning doctor of hypocrisy. Like Gore, he has turned the study of climate into a political tool to enrich himself and his foundation. Even his CBC shows, The Nature of Things, were often full of erroneous information.”

Anyway, brace yourselves for yet another round of climate terrorism and skepticism as two mortal enemies do battle. One for control and spending money, the other for truth and saving money.

“Our” ABC redefines sexism for Josh Thomas


On Wednesday, the sexist Laborfirst standup comic Josh Thomas made the Herald Sun’s frontpage.  Headline: “Nitwit tweets.” 

You see, for some reason the ABC2 joker and progressive Q&A guest thought it was funny to attack Tony Abbott’s mother, Fay.

Just hilarious, right? 

As the Herald Sun (Melbourne) editorialised:

THE ABC might think it amusing to put comedian Josh Thomas on the panel of Q&A, but his crude tweet about Tony Abbott’s mother should see him sacked. 

Thomas’s tweet that rather than stopping the boats, he would prefer it if Mr Abbott stopped his mother from “comin’ round my place at night for sex” is highly offensive and painfully personal.

His comments were sent to his 220,000 followers on Twitter when they should be consigned to the ABC toilets.

It is not the first time Thomas has ridiculed Opposition figures, but making Mr Abbott’s mother a target is a step too far.

Clearly, Thomas does not consider the rules of common decency apply to him. He’s wrong…

You might also remember Thomas from Channel 7’s C-list flop, Celebrity Splash. Nevertheless, the ABC celebrity is apparently beyond realworld accountability.  So, while Alan Jones is condemned for his remarks about Julia Gillard’s father in a private setting, Thomas’ public attack on Abbott’s mother is wished away. 

Recall too how the ABC melted down after a sexist antiGillard menu was allegedly distributed at a conservative dinner. I certainly do. The taxpayerfunded media’s outrage was palpable.  Yet, “our” ABC is now cool with Thomas’ sexism. 

In today’s toxic media groupthink culture, rules are selectively applied (in this case) to punish “sinful” conservatives and reward “angelic” leftwingers. Coalition bad. Labor good. 

As for Abbott’s mother? Well, she’s just a piece of comedy meat. Sexism, like marriage, is being redefined. 

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. 








The sisterhood of multiculturalism and bias


Toby’s humour temporarily soured when he learned that the ABC has no conservative presenters in their ranks. Given that the Absolutely Bias Corporation is merely a propaganda instrument of the socialist left, but also subsidised by all those on the right, Toby applied to replace the presenter of Q&A Tony Jones.

Toby was accused of being a mentally deranged madman who should be locked up. The letter in reply contained two words: “Piss-off!”

Knowing there must be a vacancy with Britain’s BBC given the departure of Jimmy Savile, Toby went to England to seek advice and perhaps a recommendation from fellow Aussie Rolf Harris. Rolf supported Toby’s self-written CV but all was to no avail.

The BBC refusal in reply had a familiar tone: “Piss-off Aussie misogynist!”

Similarities between the BBC and Auntie appear obvious. “They’re joined at the bloody hip,” as Toby writes. GC.Ed.@L.

News has just escaped from Great Britain that induces bladder malfunction and an irresistible impulse to drop the jaw. A 25-year study found that the BBC downplayed every negative story on multiculturalism and, conversely, up played every touchy-feely warmy-fuzzy dry-my-tears ‘success’ of multiculturalism.

 “Downplayed” hardly does justice in some cases. They didn’t report it at all.

As if we didn’t know.

The BBC took a wide view of ‘multiculturalism’. To the BBC, multiculturalism embraces immigration and religion; it is not just Serbian folk dances, Khana Pakana with chips, and colourful salwar kameez and lehenga choli.

No indeedy, the BBC thought it best to give anybody space who wanted to question Christianity, condemn the Pope or sneer at the Archbishop of Canterbury, cast doubt on the accuracy of the Epistles of Paul, while happily playing along with the concept of Islam as the Religion of Peace. Christian nut-cases were routinely bagged while—to quote the report—the ‘left wing Corporation’ downplayed ‘violence by Islamists’

Mind you, said the report, the BBC bias was manifest but the bias was often unintentional or provoked by ‘basic decency’ and a desire to protect the underdog.

Corruption, no doubt, biases no doubt, but corruption for a noble cause.

So that’s all right then. Basically decent chaps distorting and suppressing news for a noble cause.

As to immigration, the report says that the corporation suffers from left wing ‘groupthink’ that prevents its journalists from challenging institutional bias and results in pro-immigration ‘propaganda’.

Ah, decent chaps caught up in unrecognised (by them) thinking alike.

Who wooda thunk?

Others might have put it; “fools never differ.”

“In its coverage of the topic of immigration, the BBC has given overwhelmingly greater weight to pro-migration voices, even though they represent a minority—even elitist—viewpoint.” And, “in its coverage of the economic arguments for and against immigration, it has devoted somewhat more space to pro-migration voices.

‘In terms of the social costs, the BBC has almost totally ignored certain areas. ‘It would be no exaggeration to say that a foreigner who subscribed only to the BBC might visit this country and be blissfully unaware of many of the social problems associated with immigration.’

Never mind the foreigner, the Brits themselves who watch the BBC have been subjected to nothing less than brainwashing for 25 years.

The report tipped the can over BBC article on ‘Migrant Myths’ published in 2002.

The BBC article had said the idea of the ‘scrounging, bogus asylum seeker’ was a ‘misconception’, while opponents of mass immigration were guilty of ‘racism, political opportunism, misinformation, media mischief-making and sheer cowardice’ as well as genuine concern.

The report added: ‘The BBC feels uncomfortable tackling Islamic extremism or aggression by minorities; it feels more at ease to see Muslims as victims of racism or Islamophobia.’

Yes, and clearly much more at ease slandering anyone outside the groupthink cocoon as a racist cowardly stupid mischief-maker.

It’s not only immigration. The European Union is regarded as the pinnacle of Multiculturalism. This was praised and exalted in spite of the fact—as the poet puts it:

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.

The French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.

Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch

And we don’t like anybody very much!

Thank God the Australian ABC is not like that.

Not one bit.


The ABC gets itself completely facted

By Perkin-Warbeck

In this other world there is a publicly funded TV and radio broadcasting organisation – let’s for argument’s sake call it the ABC – which gets more than $1 billion a year from the taxpayers and which has a public commitment to the highest ethical standards of journalism – a commitment to truth, balance, impartiality and all of that.

This ABC has long prided itself on being above politics; in fact it has made a point of publishing and promoting its journalism code of ethics and stresses that all journalist employees must pay heed to it. Presumably, the journalists employed by this ABC are also members of the reporters’ trade union, the Media Alliance, which also has its own lofty code of ethics.

Now it is only four months or so to an election in this parallel universe and a conservative government headed by a Prime Minister – who for want of a better name is called Tony Abbott – is desperately hanging on in the face of overwhelming opinion polls which shows it is headed for electoral oblivion. An aggressive, hard-hitting Opposition headed by – again for want of a better name – Julia Gillard is so far ahead in the polls that the likely outcome almost defies gravity.

Now this ABC decides to appoint what it is pleased to call a “fact checker” and they hire, again for want of a better name a journalist called Russell Skelton. It is obvious that this position is necessary because ABC journalists cannot be relied upon by their own management to adhere to the ABC lofty code of ethics. 

The CEO of this ABC appears before a Senate committee and is grilled by Opposition senators about the independence of the “fact checker” and they cite numerous examples of the “fact checker” tweeting comments which blatantly support Abbott’s tottering government and denigrating Opposition Leader Gillard and her Shadow Ministers.

While the CEO flounders about trying to justify this appointment, the Communications Minister – again for want of a better name we will call Malcolm Turnbull – keeps up a constant flow of openly political comments defending the “fact checker” and the ABC. 

The Minister’s enthusiasm for this goes far beyond just defending the impartiality and integrity of the ABC when he agrees with tweets produced by Opposition Senators from the “fact checker” openly abusing the Opposition and making wildly untrue claims. The best the CEO can do is lamely complain that these tweets were broadcast prior to the appointment of the “fact checker”.

Well, this parallel universe doesn’t, of course, exist.

What does exist is that all of what is imagined about the parallel universe has happened in the real world but in mirror image.

Our ABC of the real world does have a marvellous code of ethics – it runs to 22 pages and has 13 separate sections. Words such as “integrity”, “independence” and “impartiality” abound.

An example: “ … the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality: a balance that follows the weight of evidence; fair treatment; open-mindedness; and opportunities over time for principle relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.”

It begs the question about the actual need for any “fact checker” at all, much less Mr Skelton, if ABC journalists follow the organisation’s own code. I wonder if the appointment is a tacit admission by ABC management that their journalists don’t, or won’t, adhere to the code.

Some of Mr Skelton’s tweets produced by the Opposition included his retweet of an absurd claim that Senate Liberal Leader Eric Abetz wanted to start a “race war” with Aborigines, while Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has been described as “super snide”, “a dense opportunistic carpetbagger” and as “Bananaby”. Opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey was described as being “not the sharpest pencil in the box” while Abbott himself was frequently referred to as “The Monk”- a snide reference to his Catholic background.

If anybody ever called Ms Gillard “The Nun”, there would be another deluge of confected outrage from her defenders alleging misogyny and worse.

If this controversy wasn’t enough for the ABC, they must face the collective cross-party outrage of the under fives when the current batch of Bananas in Pyjamas episodes end and B1 and B2 are put to bed at least until next year.

Conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for thinking that as B1 and B2 go beddie byes just as a Coalition Government takes office, distressed parents may well blame brand new Communications Minister Turnbull.  There is an insidious trend emerging here.

Some of us are old enough to remember that the ABC closed down the radio serial Blue Hills in 1976 at about the time the Fraser Government was hitting its stride and we all remember who copped the blame for this bit of ABC high-handedness.

Run that by your fact checker!