‘The introduction and legalization of “ballot harvesting,” where operatives can collect and submit boxes of ballots without proof of identity, has thrown a huge monkey wrench into last night’s presidential vote tally. States are wavering wildly as hundreds of thousands of votes are suddenly “discovered.” Hillary Clinton’s former lawyer is behind the mass legalization of this questionable process. Is this the worst run election in US history?’
Australia
Political Islam is NOT compatible with freedom and liberty loving people. For those who love liberty and true freedom of speech ‘Counseling Muslim children to commit murder in response to insults to Muslim sensibilities constitutes severe psychological abuse by Western standards. One can only imagine the horror and outrage if any Western teacher did something similar in her classroom. It is worthwhile to remember the obvious: barbaric practices sanctioned by Sharia do not magically stop with migration into Western countries.
“A Teacher At Islamabad Islamic School Beheads Effigy Of Macron In Front Of Students,” MEMRI, October 30, 2020:
A video posted on social media outlets on October 30, 2020, shows a teacher at Islamabad’s Jamia Hafsa Madrassa beheading what was described as an effigy of French President Macron with a sword in front of her students. The scene is accompanied by a song stating that “this is the punishment for the Prophet’s slanderer” and pledging to crush to dust the makers of the [Charlie Hebdo] cartoons.
Music: “This is the punishment of the Prophet’s slanderer. The head chopped off from the body. This is the punishment of the Prophet’s slanderer. The head chopped from the body. The makers of the cartoons. We shall crush them to dust…
“Pakistani girls’ school stages mock BEHEADING as cleric vows vengeance on France for ‘insulting the Prophet,’” RT News, November 2, 2020:
A girls’ religious school in Islamabad staged a mock beheading in front of its young students as a cleric preached that Muslims would exact vengeance on France – and on the West in general – for “insulting” Prophet Mohammed.
A woman in full face veil uses a scimitar to behead an effigy in front of hundreds of assembled students, many holding signs sporting protest slogans, in video posted to the official Facebook account of Jamia Syeda Hafsa, a Pakistani girls’ seminary, last week.
The disturbing scene and excerpts of a fiery sermon that accompanied it have since been picked up by Muslim-skeptical English language outlets, at least one of which claimed the effigy is of French President Emmanuel Macron, though there is no evidence in the video that this is the case. Macron has come under fire from Muslims around the world for his government’s recent efforts to crack down on Islamic extremism following the beheading of history teacher Samuel Paty last month by a Chechen Muslim immigrant.
Video of the beheading is set to a song that lyrically vows to “grind into dust” those who draw the Prophet Mohammed and declares beheading to be the only fitting punishment for insulting him. The grisly pageant was accompanied by a sermon in which the female cleric vowed vengeance on the enemies of Islam, especially France.
“So far only one of your brethren has gone to hell,” the cleric declared, adding that “we will never stop until we exact vengeance for your insult” – presumably the obscene cartoon drawing of the Prophet that Paty reportedly showed his class as part of a lesson on free speech….’https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/11/pakistan-teacher-at-islamic-school-beheads-macron-effigy-this-is-the-punishment-of-the-prophets-slanderer?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_11_05_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-11-05
It was a supposedly ‘conservative’ Australian Federal government of the Liberal/Nationals coalition that threw the Australian economy into a nose dive due to the China virus. Now, after the financial chaos the Prime Minister talks a lot about jobs while throwing billions into grid chaos renewables. He also says he is not into fighting the culture wars and yet his own Liberal party is obsessed with progressive ideas. Yes, ‘WHILE Australians are worried about actual problems like rising unemployment, the Liberal Party is worried about gender imbalance among its MPs.
It’s hard to believe that Australia’s conservative party would allow itself to be defined by progressive values, especially when progressives cannot even define the word “woman”.
But Liberals have allowed themselves to become convinced that anything less than 50 per cent of their MPs being women is inherently bad.
Nobody ever gives cogent reasons as to why there should be an equal number of men and women in parliament. That women comprise half the population is a statistical fact, but not an argument for the composition of parliament.
And the argument that “we need more representation of women” is a misuse of language since every member of parliament represents men and women equally.
The sexist idea that only a woman can truly represent the interests of women was well and truly dismantled this week when it was revealed Australia’s foreign minister Marise Payne was yet to speak to her Qatar counterpart about the alleged strip search of 13 Australian woman at Doha airport more than three weeks ago.
Imagine if a male foreign minister said he was waiting for an official report before raising the subject with Qatar’s foreign minister!
Meanwhile, the possibility that men dominate parliaments because most women are far too intelligent to pursue a career in branch stacking, faction dealing, fund raising and functions at all hours that interfere with family life is not allowed to be considered.
Anything less than male-female parity is now prima facie evidence of the Liberal Party’s “problem with women”. Only when parity is achieved can Liberals say they are inclusive and hold their heads high.
But if the Liberals were serious about a parliament that mirrored the general population, they would worry less about gender and instead focus on pre-selecting people with backgrounds other than in law.
Or they would insist that half of all MPs were professing Christians.
Or they would insist on pre-selecting candidates who were actually conservatives, regardless of gender, rather than people who were a pale shade of green.
A report released this week by Liberal think tank the Menzies Research Centre has warned that the Liberal Party was taking only “incremental steps” towards gender balance.
Currently 25 per cent of Liberal MPs across Australia are women. This is well short of the 50 per cent mark the party was hoping to achieve by 2025.
By contrast 46 per cent of Labor MPs are women. And how’s that working out for them?
The ALP lost the last federal election and received around 300,000 less votes from women than did the Liberal Party.
No wonder the MRC report says that a significant number of Liberals deny that gender imbalance matters.
But like I said, it is now an article of faith that anything less than equal numbers of men and women is evidence of a problem.
So the MRC report insisted that “the first step in addressing the representation of women in the Liberal Party is to acknowledge that the Party does in fact have a problem”. In other words, if you think that gender imbalance is not a problem, you are the problem.
The report rejected the idea of “quotas”, as used by the Labor Party, but demanded “targeted intervention” which was a fancy way of saying quotas without using the word.
Each Liberal Party division, it said, should set targets for female representation that were measured and reported every year.
So the Liberals may not be using quotas, but their fixation on social engineering shows that they are taking Australia down the same woke cul-de-sac as Labor, only more slowly.
The Liberals will betray their conservative base who believe in meritocracy and they will disappoint progressives for not doing woke as well or as quickly as the ALP and Greens.
Whatever diversity candidates they do get into parliament will bring with them their baggage of imagined grievance, which they will then project onto the party and onto society at large.
Nothing good can ever came from prioritising the right genitalia over the right resume.’https://goodsauce.news/the-liberal-party-gender-trap/
The Australian Federal Government along with every state is driving the cost of electricity beyond what the average person can afford. What is the Government’s answer to the high cost of electricity? Take note this is from an Australian Federal Government web site!
‘Cooling choices
- ceiling, pedestal and personal fans (low to medium cost)
- electric reverse-cycle air conditioners (medium to high cost)
- electric evaporative cooling (medium to high cost)
- intake of cool night air (free)
- purging of hot air (free)’https://www.energy.gov.au/households/heating-and-cooling
So, to save money on electricity the cheapest way is NOT to USE IT!! Now, I am old enough to remember what it was like living in Iowa in the middle of summer in the early 50’s without air-conditioning. That’s EXACTLY what these climate scam politicians want us to live like in 2020! I would say we can let them know what we think at the ballot box but I think the recent Presidential election in the USA gives an idea of where that would go.
Now, take time to read the following.
So-called smart meters are a very dumb response to intermittent wind and solar, even dumber energy sources. Wherever governments attempt to run on sunshine and breezes, the push to control and micromanage household power use, quickly follows.
Over the last few Australian summers, we’ve been treated to power rationing on a grand scale – which the Market Operator euphemistically tags “demand management”.
‘Demand management’ is not about supplying power consumers with what they need, it simply means shutting off power to industry, businesses and households – and even forcing hospitals to switch their lights and air conditioners off – among other indignities, whenever the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in. That’s what our ‘inevitable transition’ looks like at the macro level.
At the micro level, there’s the push to have smart meters installed in every home or business premise, in order that the grid manager can literally hold consumers to ransom, whenever renewable energy output collapses.
Now that the choice is between paying through the nose or freezing or boiling in the dark, a few are starting to wake-up to what’s really going on behind the meter.
The Critics Of ‘Smart Meters’ Were Right All Along
The Daily Telegraph
Ross Clarke
19 September 2020
Once electricity companies have established the principle that they can cut off consumers in order to cope with shortages of supply, they are bound to come back asking for more.
Imagine that you do as the Government wants you to do and buy an electric car. Then you replace your dirty old gas boiler with an electric heat pump and install a smart meter. You think you have done your bit to help the environment.
So what is your reward? To have your electricity company use your smart meter to turn off your power because there is not enough juice in the grid. Suddenly, you find yourself sitting in a cold home and your plans to drive to Birmingham tomorrow are scuppered because your car won’t be fully-charged.
Smart meters have been sold to us as part of a green future where we can manage our homes via mobile phone, switching appliances on and off remotely so as to cut our bills. But it is the cynics, so often denounced in the past few years as paranoid and backward-thinking, who have worked out the real reason why electricity companies are so keen to install them in our homes: they want to ration our electricity.
It isn’t just us who will enjoy the convenience of being able to access our appliances remotely. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks has proposed a system in which it will be able to turn off certain devices in our homes, such as electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps, when the supply of electricity is too small to meet demand.
For the moment, the company says it will only do so with consumers’ permission and that it will only be for two hours at a time. But I don’t expect that promise to last. Once electricity companies have established the principle that they can cut off consumers in order to cope with shortages of supply, they are bound to come back asking for more. And at the current rate, they will have to do this, because we simply don’t have enough storage in the electricity grid to cope with the switch to renewable energy.
Here’s the problem. Yesterday afternoon, Britain was using 34 GW worth of power. It was a sunny and windy day across much of England – ideal conditions for renewable energy. Wind was producing 5.3 GW and solar 7.6 GW, with most of the rest being produced by gas (12.1 GW) and nuclear (4.7 GW). We were also importing 1 GW from the Netherlands.
But what happens when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, as it all-too-frequently does in cold, anticyclonic conditions in midwinter, when demand for power is at its greatest? Moreover, what happens when electricity demand has been boosted by the switch to electric central heating and electric vehicles?
It ought to be obvious that if we are going to rely on intermittent sources of energy we are going to need massive investment in energy storage. Quietly over the past few years, large battery installations, housed in rows of shipping containers, have indeed popped up across Britain. At present, however, there are only enough of them to meet 1 GW worth of demand – and even then only for an hour or two. The Government is desperately trying to encourage more batteries by speeding them through the planning system. Even chuck in proposed capacity, however, and it would only supply another 4 GW of electricity for an hour or so.
But don’t expect even these batteries to get built. The Government is trying to solve the problem of a lack of energy storage through what is calls “capacity auctions”. The bids for batteries, however, are losing out to something called Demand Side Response. If you haven’t heard that jargon before, it means exactly what Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is proposing to do: persuading people to turn off appliances when electricity demand is too high.
In other words, the electricity industry has worked out that it is going to be cheaper not to bother building batteries but instead to cut us off when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing. As far as the Government’s capacity market is concerned, a kilowatt-hour of energy saved is the equivalent of a kilowatt-hour stored.
For the consumer, however, there is every difference. Cutting off our electricity threatens seriously to interfere with our lives – especially if we are going to have to rely on electric cars and heating systems in future. It doesn’t matter too much if our heating goes off for a few minutes, but if electricity companies try to plug the enormous gap between supply and demand on a still winter’s night entirely by cutting off our electricity supply to demand, we are going to find ourselves sitting in the dark rather a lot.
Unless the Government acts quickly on this problem and invests in a proper energy storage infrastructure – either that or finds another way to back up supply from intermittent wind and solar – we are going to be back in 1973 and the three-day week, when homes had to take it in turns to go without electricity. Then, it was the miners’ unions who were to blame; now it is a failure to plan properly for a green future.’https://stopthesethings.com/2020/11/04/held-to-ransom-smart-meters-shut-off-power-whenever-renewable-energy-output-collapses/
Tim Flannery is an Australian climate scam terrorist. In the past ten or twenty years (perhaps even more) Flannery has been spreading his climate scam lies, or hyperboles, far and wide. Even though he has been proven to be wrong he continues to hold positions that pay quite well. In fact this climate scammer ‘…wears clothes which appear to be mass produced synthetics, wears plastic sunglasses, and likely drives or rides in the product of a high tech fossil fuel civilisation. When he travels long distance I doubt he rides on a climate friendly donkey.
In my opinion, Flannery and his climate hypocrisy are as likely as anyone else to be held “accountable”, by any unhinged eco-terrorists he and his fellow travellers inspire with their apocalyptic nonsense.’ For the full article go to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/03/f-off-mr-carbon-tax-tim-flannery-on-why-our-generation-are-like-nazis-inspiring-a-new-wave-of-baader-meinhoff-style-ecoterrorists/
When I saw this I thought this guy belongs in a senior’s rest home somewhere.
‘Today, police in Melbourne trapped, pepper-sprayed, beat, arrested and fined anyone who dared exercise their fundamental human right to protest.
The hundreds who attended the organised rally outside the State Parliament from noon were met with brute force.
Protesters were demanding an end to all remaining lockdown restrictions.
Many were also calling for premier Daniel Andrews to resign.
Today’s protest comes as the state recorded it’s fourth consecutive days of no new Coronavirus cases. The rolling 14-day average of new COVID cases in Victoria is only 1.9 cases.
On June 6, the state allowed tens of thousands to rally for Black Lives Matter. There were four new cases that day, but the police didn’t arrest the organisers or protesters; they took a knee.’https://www.rebelnews.com/police_trap_attack_lockdown_protesters_in_melbourne_today?utm_campaign=rb_11_3_20&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
The following is from an email I received from Family Voice Australia. It is scary how far down the Marxist path Australia has gone and continues on. Free speech is under attack and if this continues there will soon be no turning back!
It has been on Sky after dark here in regional Australia concerning ‘…Queensland University student Drew Pavlou. The university suspended him in July to the end of the year so he could not sit his final exams or take up his elected university senate seat.
His crime? He led a peaceful protest against the Chinese government’s undue influence on university policies. He is seeking to appeal in Queensland’s Supreme Court, but this can take a very long time.
You may also have heard of Dr Peter Ridd, formerly a physics professor. James Cook University sacked him after he pointed out serious flaws in Great Barrier Reef research by some of his colleagues. He is currently seeking to appeal his unfair dismissal in the High Court.
Dr Peter Ridd & Drew Pavlou
Then there is Senator Claire Chandler. She was accused of offending transgender people in a newspaper column last July and a subsequent email. The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner said she was potentially guilty.
Chandler had said, correctly, that biological women are up to 30% more at risk of injury when competing against transwomen. She wanted to keep women’s sports, toilets and change rooms for those born female.
Senator Claire Chandler
The complaint against her was ultimately dropped when she refused to sign a confidentiality agreement. Others who lack the protection of parliament may not be so lucky.
Free speech in this country is under threat today as never before. The Weekend Australian reported yet another case on 24 October. The University of Tasmania Law Review has rejected a paper by Professor Patrick Parkinson, Dean of Law at the University of Queensland.
Professor Patrick Parkinson
He was critical of the Tasmanian transgender laws that caused Senator Chandler such grief.
The Tasmanian University Law Review chose referees who said Professor Parkinson’s paper should be rejected. They claimed he used “offensive” terms such as “biological female” and “opposite sex”, and he failed to consider activist and social sciences research.
One reviewer even wanted the paper rejected because it would not “advance human rights”!
James Allan, another law professor, read the two reviewers’ reports. “Both, in my view, failed to do the job expected of referees,” he said (The Australian, 27/10/20).
“Politics trumped the open expression of views that were presented well above the usual standards required to have a paper accepted by a law review.”
James Allan went on: “The core problem then is that as our universities have become increasingly politicised, and faculties of social science, arts and law ever less ‘viewpoint diverse’ … the whole peer review process has become less and less trustworthy. Put more bluntly, this amounts to yet another inroad into free expression.
“… If Parkinson’s experience were a one-off, we could all shrug and move on. But it is not,” he said.
If Professor Parkinson – a respected legal expert – cannot say that the Tasmanian laws are flawed, how can any of us speak the truth publicly about harmful legislation? You, your friends and your pastor are increasingly at risk.’ https://familyvoice.org.au/
The United States is voting today for their freedom! Yes, their freedom because if Sleepy Joe wins individual freedom as once known is gone. Islam and Marxism will be the new guys on the block!
Here in Australia we have a couple of years before another Federal election. However, there isn’t a real big choice here when it comes to the major parties. The supposedly conservatives, Liberal/Nationals, are simply socialist Labor/Green lite. So many on both sides have succumbed to the Chinese and their money.
However, it is not only the Chinese that is a worry with our Australian politicians but also the culture war. For instance Liberal Prime Minister Morrison and his government have failed miserably in many many areas of which one ‘…is against the transgender ideology. In June, Health Minister Greg Hunt refused to support a joint federal/state inquiry into what advice is being given by gender clinics to parents of young children and to young people under 18 presenting for treatment. As noted by Moira Deeming in this publication, the increasing numbers of children and young people presenting to gender clinics is very concerning. The Royal Children’s Hospital’s Gender Service, Melbourne reported a 250-fold increase in new referrals to their service between 2003 and 2017 – from 1 to 250. Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory have now made “gender conversion” practices illegal. Victoria will soon follow suit. This is despite the evidence provided by a significant majority of medical professionals that almost all affected children will revert to an identity congruent with chromosomes through puberty. All that is needed in the great majority of cases is ‘watchful waiting’ in expectation of natural reversion, supported by individual and family counselling, and appropriate administration of psychiatric care. This view is supported by many individuals who have experienced a positive change from properly given and appropriate therapy. Under the above-mentioned legislation, access to such therapy will be denied and anyone with influence involved in a child’s life risks incarceration if they do not embrace “affirmative therapy”.
Why then is the government — and the Prime Minister in particular — so hostile to the exercise of fundamental freedoms?
To find a possible answer, we must go back as far as March 2017, when he was Treasurer in the Turnbull government. At this time, attempts were being made to amend section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975, which prohibits an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity. It had been Coalition policy to either repeal this law or amend it significantly, since it infringes the implied right in the Australian Constitution of freedom of political communication given that the language and emotions 18C targets – offence, insult and humiliation – go far beyond what is required in the international treaties most directly supporting this Act, they being the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
During the debate on the legislation to amend the Act, Morrison told The Sydney Morning Herald that changing section 18C would not help reduce unemployment or improve any other economic metric. He said at the time: “As a senior figure in this government … I know this issue doesn’t create one job, doesn’t open one business, doesn’t give anyone one extra hour. It doesn’t make housing more affordable or energy more affordable. I don’t see any intersection between that issue and those priorities.”
Well, as we have seen this year, oppressive measures to counter coronavirus which have failed to protect those most vulnerable and the Prime Minister’s support for them, have created economic disaster and numbers of unemployed not seen since the early 1990s. The fact is that this appalling result has been achieved with authoritarian provisions in denying the fundamental human rights of Australians, yet at the same time expecting their total obedience and acquiescence. M
The Prime Minister’s weak criticism of the Victorian government in the parliament while at the same time justifying is actions is consistent with that of a man who has in the past displayed his authoritarian tendencies on several occasions.
Scott Morrison’s gratitude for the ‘quiet Australians’ who returned his government can only be described as hollow words by a hollow man. I would go so far as to argue that, as Australia faces its biggest economic and social crisis since World War II, the biggest threat, along with Dictator Dan, to our democracy, the freedoms that underpin it, along with the physical, economic and social well-being of Australians, is in fact the Prime Minister himself.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/10/scott-morrison-dismal-with-daniel-andrews-feeble-on-freedom/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FLAT%20%2020201102%20%20AL&utm_content=FLAT%20%2020201102%20%20AL+CID_901f08e715bf311aa0c7b813ed70b327&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=Rocco%20Loiacono
I encourage you to click the above link to read the entire article.
Rubert Murdoch owns Sky News here in Australia and fortunately for many of us in regional Australia we receive without charge what the Leftists call Sky after dark. It’s then we conservatives are allowed to hear Peta Credlin, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and others. Nevertheless, here and around the Western world ‘For the left, Rupert Murdoch truly is an, if not the, Antichrist. He has been so before Trump and is likely to be so after Trump is gone. This is one of the great political constants of the last four decades across much of the English-speaking world.
That Murdoch has “extremely polarised” our politics, or that he has “poisoned” our media, is really a shorthand for “he has dared to provide an alternative view” for that part of the electorate that is instinctively not left-wing. More so than any other media owners (most of them by now in any case gone, like Conrad Black), Murdoch has successfully worked to fill this rather big niche in the market.
Today, he and his media empire are the only thing standing in the way of the total monopolistic domination of the English-language media by the left-wing Public-Private Partnership of state-run and funded and various supported privatemedia outlets. That’s why the left hates him – if not for Murdoch, left-wing voices would be the only ones heard and read by the hundreds of millions of people in the United States, Great Britain and Australia.
The post-Marx, Gramscian/Frankfurt School left has seen the path to political power leading through the gradual take-over of the “commanding heights” of cultural production – if you can influence and control what people are taught, what they see, hear and read, what they feel and what they think, you will get your hands on the levers of power in a surer (and more peaceful) way than through a revolution and take-over of the means of production. This is in a way the reversal of classical Marxism where the economic power arrangements shape the culture of the people; for the new, cultural left, those who control the culture will in time hold the economic and political power too. This is not a conspiracy, just an ideological outlook that explains why our contemporary culture, education and the media overwhelmingly skew to the left.
But Rupert Murdoch remains a giant steaming Australian turd on the banquet table of the modern left.
Look at the United States. Of the biggest circulation daily newspapers, only two can be considered to the right of centre – “New York Post” and “The Wall Street Journal”, though the later more in its opinion pages than news reporting. Both are owned by Murdoch. The rest of the field offers various shades of conventional left. In 2016, only six newspapers endorsed Donald Trump (granted, a rather unconventional GOP candidate) for president, including such giants of print industry as “St. Joseph News-Press”, “Santa Barbara News-Press”, “The Waxahachie Daily Light”, Hillsboro’s “Times-Gazette”, “The Antelope Valley Press”, and (for a change in pace) “Las Vegas Review-Journal”. You get the drift. News and popular interest and lifestyle magazines – anything from “Time” to “Vanity Fair” — skews even more decisively to the left. On the small screen, Fox stands alone versus all the major free-to-air and cable channels. Radio is the only mass medium with a significant right-of-centre presence, talk radio having been an oasis of voices other than the progressive mainstream for at least 30 years now.
In Great Britain, Murdoch owns the tabloid “Sun” and the respectable “Times”. The former is actually pretty ecumenical both in reporting and in opinion. The only other major British daily more unequivocally associated with the right, “The Telegraph”, is not owned by Murdoch, which makes it a significant outlier in the English-speaking world. Murdoch’s Sky is the only counterbalance to the progressive bias on the silver screen, led, of course, by the taxpayer-funded BBC empire.
Australia is a newspaper outlier. This is where Murdoch’s media empire has started and this is where Murdoch owns just over half of daily newspapers, altogether accounting for about 70 per cent of the total circulation. The others, including the Nine newspapers, correspondingly lean to the left. If Australians at least have a better than elsewhere choice in print media, the television is pretty uniformly non-right, nowhere more so than at the state-owned (read: taxpayer-funded, left-run) ABC. As an alternative to it all there is only Sky, which as a subscriber-only service has a smaller reach compared to the free-to-air channels. Then there’s the trust-fund kids of The Guardian Australia, the abuse of union superannuation funds that is The New Daily, the left-wing Melbourne millionaires’ playthings such as The Monthly and the Saturday Paper and Crikey and that symbol of so much that is wrong with our universities, The Conversation.
Take away Murdoch then, and you have the mainstream media almost completely devoid of voices other than the conventional left-wing perspective in opinion and the crusading, politicised, biased reporting in the news. The alternative provided by most (but certainly not all) Murdoch’s outlets means that the progressive “education” of the population cannot be successfully concluded. As the popular observation goes, the left loves diversity in everything except opinion. The progressive utopia looks like United Colors of Benneton all singing from one catalogue. That we’re not there yet, despite the ginormous effort by the left, is largely due to Murdoch.
No wonder the left hates him so much. But he is 89 (though if it’s true you’re only as old as the woman you feel, thanks to Jerry Hall, he’s only 64). His children are no ideological warriors; they range from safely conventional to conventionally left-leaning.
So let’s enjoy Rupert while we still can – after he’s gone there is no one person to replace him in his role as the lone counter-point to the left’s domination of the media. We will need an army of Ruperts instead to stand athwart the narrative and call the bullshit. And we better start planning for it soon.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/10/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-dominate-our-media-he-stands-in-the-way-of-total-left-control-hence-the-hate-campaign/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FLAT%20%2020201102%20%20AL&utm_content=FLAT%20%2020201102%20%20AL+CID_901f08e715bf311aa0c7b813ed70b327&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=Arthur%20Chrenkoff
whatyareckon 