Andrew Bolt is Australia's most dangerous racist. He is employed by a major Australian regional newspaper and a TV station that broadcasts nationwide in order for him to directly peddle his racist and Islamophobic propaganda. His blog at Rupert Murdoch's Herald-Sun newspaper enjoys the support of a small but dedicated group of like-minded extreme right-wing bigots, rednecks and racists who regularly comment at his blog, and his TV spot is financially supported by various asssorted climate change deniers who have a vested interest in being anti-renewable resources and pro-pollutionist.

Bolt is dangerous because he has a wide audience that his employers see as being gullible to their brand of media propaganda.

This blog aims to expose Bolt for what he really is - a deceitful propagandist intent on dividing Australians by promoting fear and paranoia of multiculturalism. Without the backing of the likes of Murdoch and Gina Rinehart, et al, Bolt is nothing.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010


This is a new site created specifically to document Murdoch journalist Andrew Bolt's vilification of races and religion in Australia. Readers are invited to contribute.


How good would our navy be at stopping boats that don’t actually want to be detected? Say, Chinese naval ones?

Chinese navy boats coming to Australia?

Bolt's taking us back to the 'lets fear the Asiatic hordes to the north' era. The call for the return of the old White Australia policy is never far away with Bolt and his racist followers.


  1. Damian, further to your post on the other blog about the law relating to racial vilification, and just for the benefit of everybody (who may not be so familiar with the relevant provisions), I'm posting below some parts of the Act that may be pertinent. Sections 15 and 27, I should think, are particularly pertinent in relation to the culpability of those who assist others (for example, by providing them with a platform) to contravene provisions of the Act:

    Section 1(a)(b) of the Act states its purpose to be to “promote racial … tolerance by prohibiting certain conduct involving the vilification of persons on the ground of race …” and to “to provide a means of redress for the victims of racial … vilification.”

    Section 7(1) states that: “A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.” This behaviour, adds section (2)(a), “may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time”.

    Section 9 states that the motive behind the contravention of section 7 is irrelevant.

    Section 15 states: “A person must not request, instruct, induce, encourage, authorise or assist another person to contravene a provision of this Part.”

    Section 27 (1)(a) states: “If a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Part, each officer of the body corporate who knowingly directed, authorised or permitted the commission of the offence by the body corporate, is also guilty of an
    offence against this Part.”

    Section 27 (4)(a) states: “If a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Part, each officer of the body corporate who knowingly directed, authorised or permitted the commission of the offence by the body corporate, is also guilty of an
    offence against this Part.”

    Section 19 states that complaints alleging contravention of the Act may be made to the Commission by persons or person acting on behalf of that person or a representative body that believes the matter of the alleged contravention of the Act to be against its interests of the interests of the welfare of those it represents.

  2. Admittedly, he did remove the comment below (by "eddie") after a while, perhaps because I tried to post a comment in response to it asking whether it constituted racial vilification, and wondering aloud whether Bolt would have ever allowed it to see the light of day were it vilifiying Jews. Funnily enough, rather than SNIPPING the offensive post, he removed it altogether (together with any responses) as if it had never existed in the first place! For this reason, screen grabs may perhaps be wise for any offending material. In this instance you'll just have to take my word for it, unless you remember seeing it as well.


    “On the African continent the average African IQ varies between 70-78, depending which country. The average IQ in China is 105. With such low average IQ it shouldnt come as any shock that Africa is a failed continent. Bringing tens of thousands of Africans to Australia is asking for trouble.

    Fri 19 Mar 10 (12:52am)

  3. An oldie but a "goodie" (for our purposes). Spencer de Vere, it ought to be quite clear, is a racist; and this is no doubt known to Bolt, as Spencer is a long-term poster; and I've previously complained to Bolt about this poster's clear racism, but received no response:


    I’m surprised that our Lefty PC types haven’t exploded in outrage about that new TV advert (for SKINS, whatever that is) where black men are talking about the natural physical superiority of “African-Americans”. Talk of being born with superior physiques, having been descended from “warrior ancestors” and having “a killer instinct”.

    I guess it must be OK then, to point out the apparently innate dishonesty, criminality and intellectual under-achieving of African-Americans .

    Sun 13 Apr 08 (09:05am)


    The key word here is "innate"; for racism, according to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (, is 'the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races," that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some "races" are innately superior to others.'

    So Spencer de Vere believes that "African-Americans" are INNATELY dishonest, criminal and intellectually under-achieving. In other words, traits of personality, morality, intellect, etc, found in "African-Americans" are causally linked to the physical traits that make them "African-Americans", that is, their "race".

    That position, I submit, fits the denotative meaning of racism, and Spencer de Vere is a racist. And Bolt's blog provided Spencer de Vere with a platform from which to engage in racial vilification.

  4. Although the quotation below may not technically fall into the denotative definition of racism, it nevertheless reveals (particularly in light of the prior post) a dislike of non-"whites" like (in this case) Hispanics and "blacks". I mean, why make such a remark except to be malignant? In light of the racist quotation above of Spencer's, it is likely that he believes the illiteracy he alleges here to have some "innate" basis.


    Re Park’s “The NYT is nominally a city daily and seeing as that city has a circulation of 1 million in a population of 12 million, I would say it is doing very well”

    Particularly when you factor in so many Hispanics and blacks being near illiterate

    Mon 09 Nov 09 (03:53pm)


  5. A gentleman who posts under the name "Strange Days Indeed of Randwick warns Andrew Bolt in the quotation below of being consistent with regard to vilification:


    I read it and was sickened. You were right to expose it, but I fear you encourage racist sentiment towards black Somalians and Muslims in general, Andrew. In saying that I want to say that in no way can you be comparable to some of the vile filth populating the MFC boards, but if you are going to take a stand on racism it has to be a consistent and universal application.

    A while ago I read in here some nasty comments by a Spencer De Vere, and others, to the extent that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

    Like a true little jackboot, he had his so called facts to back up his world view, despite the obvious impossibility of having a scientific definition of race, as any half-educated person knows.

    All I am saying is that that stuff should not be tolerated in your board, as much as the anti-Semitic displays should not on the MFC board.

    Mon 29 Oct 07 (12:45pm)


    Bolt's response is as follows:


    "Have you actually read a single word I’ve written about the Sudanese here (not Somalians)? What a stupid, offensive accusation you make.

    As for Islam, my argument has always been against Islamist facists who are killing more Muslims than Christians. Your criticism of me in this regard is like accusing me of being anti-German because I criticise Nazis.

    Mon 29 Oct 07 (12:50pm)


    Strange Days Indeed responds:


    All I am saying is that that stuff (allowing your commentators to suggest that whites are more intelligent than blacks) should not be tolerated on your board, as much as the anti-Semitic displays should not on the MFC board.

    Especially if you do find racism offensive.

    Now that happened a week or two ago, and obviously you can\’t be expected to see everything on your board, but you do have moderators. What is the moderator policy on blatant racism?

    Your German analogy does not wash; you do focus on Muslims, whom you should not, rather that Islamists, whom you should. You do this at a rate of about 4.7 to 1, according to Google

    Mon 29 Oct 07 (02:07pm)


    Bolt responds again:


    Your “evidence” is utterly absurd. I’ve written about terrorists who insist they are Muslims, and say that is precisely why they do what they do. In countless articles I’ve written that most Muslims I know do not support them.

    Mon 29 Oct 07 (04:33pm)


    Notice that Bolt does not say anything about the likes of racists like Spencer de Vere. That was in 2007, when Strange Days Indeed alerted him to the presence of such racists. And yet Spencer de Vere has continued to be a regular poster since, enjoying the use of the platform Bolt is evidently happy to give him to voice his views.

  6. Oops! I realize now that for the first Spencer de Vere post I did not provide the link! Here is the post with the link as well:


    I’m surprised that our Lefty PC types haven’t exploded in outrage about that new TV advert (for SKINS, whatever that is) where black men are talking about the natural physical superiority of “African-Americans”. Talk of being born with superior physiques, having been descended from “warrior ancestors” and having “a killer instinct”.

    I guess it must be OK then, to point out the apparently innate dishonesty, criminality and intellectual under-achieving of African-Americans .

    Sun 13 Apr 08 (09:05am)

  7. A nice introduction to "ronald reagun", on whom I'll start my series.

    In the link below, Gordon of Perth, an American, speaks about why Condi Rice became a republican, quoting her relating how the Democrats in 1952 Jim Crow Alabama would not let her father register to vote, while the Republicans would.

    ronald reagun retorts below that post, "So Rice’s father was one of those despised WET Republicans", implying that "real", "dry" republicans would have never done such a thing.

    Offended, Gordon of Perth replies: "WTF do you mean by that, you ugly racist troll?"

    So Gordon of Perth (a regular poster for a while, though I don't know if he still posts), thought this ronald reagun to be an "ugly racist troll." But ronald reagun made many, many posts over a long period of time, many clearly worse than this one, as I will come to show. Andrew Bolt never did anything to stop him, even though several readers would make similar comments as Gordon of Perth did in this instance.

  8. I lied. Bolt (or his moderators) actually SNIPPED ronald reagun for "racism" on one occasion. On this occasion he talks about the US unlikely to elect anyone without an Anglo surname. He subsequently replies to some replies to his comments and in the last one we simply see: SNIP FOR RACISM.

    This raises an interesting question. If Bolt (or his moderators) recognized him to be a racist, why did they not ban him there and then instead of allowing him to continue to be a regular poster? Does racism on Bolt's blog only call for a light slap on the wrist?

  9. A common theme of ronald reagun's is/was that of social darwinism, of which he's an ardent believer. A constant refrain of his was, "Youse can’t fool dem genes", alluding to the racial-genetic determinism that decides the fate of nations and its people, with the "white" "race" no doubt being on top of the heap by virtue of possessing the most superior genes, of course.


    The Natives of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) are now living as their ancestors did.
    And they will eventually become happy.

    Whitey should keep right out.

    Let nature take its course.
    The weak will die.
    The strong will live.
    It is the African’s way.

    ‘Youse can’t fool dem genes’.

    Wed 05 Mar 08 (09:08am)

  10. ronald reagun, the social darwinist (racist) on steroids, continues:


    Humans are still strongly ‘tribal’ in nature, in this 21st century.

    And it is the genes that are responsible for this attitude.
    Even after the huge time-span of evolution.

    The difference between the races now, lies primarily in the percentage of each race, who can live successfully in these modern times.
    Some races have 80%.
    Some have 8%.
    Not good for integration!

    Thu 19 Feb 09 (09:05pm)

  11. Our social Darwninist doesn't think much of the "Slavonic race", I suppose echoing the view the Nazis had of them:

    Because of the communist party genocide in their country, which wiped out almost all of the intelligent people in Russia, the intelligent West has to be careful when dealing with this Slavonic race.

    They have to be treated like children.
    Bribery is the best policy.
    The psychology of mental health doctor to patient relationship, should be followed.

    Subtle changes in the trade area should then be applied to give a message that the West is not happy with the way they have behaved.

    But the USA would have their new anti-ballistic missile system on full alert. Just in case.
    Big John Howard had approved this anti-missile system for Australia as well. But China would have been upset, so it looks like Kevin has scrapped the proposal and saved over one billion dollars.
    In his mind, a win, win outcome.
    Poor Australia.

    Fri 15 Aug 08 (09:12am)


    A poster by the name of "alex" expresses his disgust at such a comment, wondering how the moderators allow such filth to get through:


    Two interesting posts from you today - one hinting at “undesirable genetic characteristics” in Aborigines, and now another one referring to “this Slavonic race” who “have to be treated like children”, comparing them also to mental patients.

    Sickening. How does such filth get through the moderators?

    Fri 15 Aug 08 (05:17pm)

  12. This one's an interesting one. Andrew Bolt sees the comment. And gives ronald reagun a slap on the wrist. Just to cover himself. But he leaves the comment up. And allows ronald reagun to continue making many similar posts for months to come. Bolt and his moderators SNIP comments and ban posters. But ronald reagun is left in peace -- or at least was left in peace for a long, long time (if he no longer posts).


    Like Einstein said in his Swiss German accented English, when at the Zurich university, “Youse can’t fool dem genes”.

    It is not the Aboriginal males fault that they behave as they do.
    They were genetically programmed, by their Indian ancestors. Thousands of years ago.

    Sat 24 May 08 (08:01pm)


    Andrew Bolt (perhaps to cover himself) replies below the post: "Nonsense".

    But he leaves the comment up. He gives such views a platform (even if he may "distance" himself from them). And he allows ronald reagun to continue making many, many more posts.

  13. Our racist social Darwinist friend replies to Gordon of Perth's comment about offering better educational opportunities to Aboriginal children:


    Reply to Gordon

    It would be a scandalous waste of taxpayer’s money.

    And racist.

    Youse can’t fool dem genes.

    Thu 06 Mar 08 (09:26pm)


    Gordon of Perth, digusted, replies: "You are a disgusting, offensive, racist troll, “ronald reagun.” "

    A "disgusting, offensive, racist", it would seem, happily tolerated (for months upon months, if not years) by Andrew Bolt, given a platform time and time again from which to spew his "disgusting, offensive, racist" views.

  14. ronald reagun gives us some more enlightenment on the Aboriginals:


    It is a sad day when the farmer’s son from Nambour, Queensland, now Prime Minister, drags the Australian persona, so strongly admired in the civilised world, in the mud.

    The people who call themselves Aborigine, to a greater or lesser degree, are human beings who cannot live successfully in the 21st century.

    Through no fault of their own.
    They can blame the genetic inheritance of their long ago Dravadian ancestors.

    Tue 12 Feb 08 (08:54pm)


    Gordon of Perth (perhaps because he's an American and has seen what such social Darwinist thinking can do when believed, as happened in the US in the beginning of the 20th century) is again disgusted:

    "You are sick, Troll. I hope you are just spewing outrageous things like that in the hopes of getting some attention and that you don’t truly believe that."

    Getting some attention? Given Bolt's long-time tolerance of this guy, perhaps he was hoping to get attention of the authorities, perhaps to stick his tongue out at them in the face of the racial vilification laws, and mock them that they can't touch him while he stands behind Rupert Murdoch.