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.

Thursday, October 24, 2013


In a recent interview with Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, Australian journalist Andrew Bolt displayed the extent of his well-known racism when the discussion turned to Australia’s indigenous people. It went thus:

AB: I assume you believe all Australians should be treated equally on the grounds of race and ethnic origin.

PM: Yes.

AB: Why do you then want the Constitution rewritten so that some Australians are given different status on the grounds of their racial ancestry?

PM: Well, that's not I want [sic]. I want to appropriately acknowledge indigenous people in the Constitution. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have two classes of Australian citizens, and any proposed amendment that did in effect create two classes of citizens wouldn't be put forward by me, and would deserve to fail if it was.

AB: But dividing people by race …

PM: Yeah, but you're assuming that anything along these lines will divide people by race.

AB: Yes, I do.

PM: Well, I don't accept that this is mission impossible.

The words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ have been universally accepted as being derogatory in the sense that the words are usually used to convey a negative perception of a person or a persons attitude to people of a different race, culture or religion. A racist is a person of one race who, for whatever reason, hates people of another race simply on the basis that those other people are of a different race. The hatred is usually accompanied by, or more usually caused by, an innate fear of the other and/or a sense of superiority over the other. That sense of superiority usually revolves around sense of cultural superiority and/or differences in physical appearance which to the racist denotes both cultural and physical superiority.

What Bolt attempts to do is deny his racism while at the same time promote it and, in order to achieve this, he has developed a rhetoric that tries to ‘invert’ his racism. He does this by insisting that, if we recognise the differences in other people’s cultures, religion, heritage and physical appearance, then that in itself is racism. In other words, recognising the positive aspects of people of different colour, religion, culture or heritage is to Bolt as much racism as the more usual negative characteristics that we think of when considering and using the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’.

Where Bolt’s attempts to hoodwink us fails is in what he offers as an alternative – and it is this that betrays his racism.

What Bolt says he wants is for all Australians to be treated equally. The problem here, however, is what Bolt wants to set as the standard by which equality is attained – and that for Bolt is a white Anglo-European-Judea-Christian dominated Western orientated monocultural society which others, if they must be here, are expected to adopt and assimilate into leaving their own cultures and religions behind. Bolt insists that ‘they’ become like ‘us’ and that they not be allowed to integrate ‘their’ culture and religion into ‘ours’.

Bolt wants to deny Australia’s Indigenous people their right to recognition as Australia’s first people in a future revised constitution. He supports the crackpot ideas of Keith Windschuttle who denies the ‘stolen generations’ and denies that widespread massacres and ethnic cleansing of Aboriginal people by white settlers occurred during colonisation.

Bolt is the quintessential Australian racist; he denies that he is a racist and accuses anyone that attempts to recognise the attributes of the culture, heritage and religion of others as being racist against white Anglo-European-Judea-Christians who want a Western orientated monocultural nation.

The very idea of a multicultural, multiracial society that recognises the virtues of the culture, heritage and religion of different races co-existing in our nation is a complete anathema to Andrew Bolt.

Monday, September 16, 2013


As part of his anti-Aborigine propaganda and rhetoric, Andrew Bolt has taken to using the tag ‘New Racism’ to explain his weird inverted sense of logic when referring to indigenous people with very light or fair skin who he thinks are merely using their indigenous heritage to gain some advantages that wouldn’t otherwise be available to them.

By stating that they are using their heritage to gain an advantage, Bolt is implying that these people are deliberately defrauding the system and that they are claiming indigenous heritage for that specific purpose. Never mind that all of them had been brought up within indigenous culture and were aware of their indigenous heritage long before they even knew what the word ‘defraud’ actually meant.

Furthermore, by saying that they are too fair skinned to be Aboriginal can only be described as racial stereotyping. And who is Bolt to say what folk should look like to claim their heritage? There’s far more to racial heritage than mere skin colour. Just because a person doesn’t look like as one might expect doesn’t mean to say that person isn’t what that person claims to be.

Bolt’s purpose in life is to blot out entirely Aboriginal culture over time. He’d deny a persons heritage in his quest to ideologically ‘breed out’ Aboriginality just as the White Australians of yesteryear tried physically ‘breed out’ the indigenous population before.

But where did Bolt get this ‘New Racism’ tag?

Well, one can’t say he plagiarised it per se, but he has hijacked it – and he’s hijacked it from none other than his arch-nemesis, Robert Manne the academic who has frequently debunked both Bolt’s and Keith Windschuttle’s nonsense denying the Stolen Generations.

In September 2002 Manne wrote an essay that was published in The Age newspaper titled “Beware the new racism” in which he described how being racist went beyond discriminating just because of physical differences such as skin colour, etc., but also included discriminating because of culture and religion; the concept of heritage, of course, links the two.

The tag, ‘New Racism’ as coined by Robert Manne, has been hijacked by Bolt in order perpetuate his ideology of breeding out indigenous heritage in order to create a ‘New Australian’ devoid of any true indigenous heritage and dominated by people of White Anglo-European ‘heritage’.

Friday, August 16, 2013


The politicians of the two mainstream parties in Australia, Liberal and Labor, have worked themselves up into a frenzy as they battle each other to see who can make life the most miserable for boatpeople in order to attract a vote from the Australian people as they head to the polling booths in three weeks time. To listen to the debate during this campaign one could be forgiven for thinking that the upcoming election is more of a referendum about boatpeople than the political future of Australia. It seems almost as though Australians are being asked to decide how best we can make life as difficult as possible for people who come to Australia by boat – and all this on the pretext of ‘stopping the drownings’.

The ‘stopping the drownings’ argument is a furphy, however; the drownings can be stopped instantly by the simple expediency of either flying asylum seekers to Australia or providing seaworthy boats.

Politicians are also exaggerating the boatpeople impact on Australia’s immigration policy. Labor’s Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, has stated that boatpeople could account for some 20% of immigration to Australia. This is just fearmongering nonsense. The figures suggest something different. At worst, if boatpeople arrivals continued at the same rate as the first six months of this year with some 13,000 boatpeople arrivals, then boatpeople over the year would account for less than 13% of Australia’s nominated intake of 210,000 for the year – a number that can easily be absorbed into the Australian community across the nation.

Despite the impression Australian politicians want to give about boatpeople, the reality is somewhat different. According to the Australian ABC’s Vote Compass project, which at last look had attracted some 780,000 respondents, Australian’s biggest concerns by far is the economy – not the boatpeople issue.

So, who are driving the politicians over the boatpeople issue if it’s not the Australian people?

The answer is simple: it is the extreme right-wing commentariat, particularly those within the Murdoch empire such as Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Piers Akerman, Janet Albrechtsen, Gerard Henderson, et al, who dominate Australia’s media. By writing opinion pieces that are anti-boatpeople and then running public opinion polls that reflect their views they give the impression to politicians that the boatpeople issue is the main concern for Australians and that they don’t want boatpeople in Australia. Because to say so outright gives the impression that this reflects a racist attitude, all sorts of excuses are used to deflect the accusation. These include: stopping the drownings, (a current favourite in the light of recent tragedies); that boatpeople are queue-jumpers, that boatpeople are really economic migrants, and so on. The real reason, of course, that the noisy minority don’t want boatpeople in Australia is because they are not white European people as will be the vast majority of the 210,000 migrants who would otherwise make up the quota for the year.

It’s as simple as that. Why the non-Murdoch media can’t face up to this reality and call it as it is – racism – is beyond me. What’s to be scared of?

Australian politicians are making political mountains out of boatpeople molehills.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013


Ever wondered why Bolt is so anti-renewable energy? Have you wondered why he’s so anti-Carbon tax and why he’s a climate change denialist? We all know why he’s anti-boatpeople and against respecting the rights and heritage of Aboriginal people and demeaning of African and Islamic people – it’s because he’s a racist, but do you know why he’s so anti-green energy and generally such an avid anti-environmentalist?

The problem with non-renewable energy resources – apart from polluting our atmosphere as it gets used and being… well, non-renewable, as in; once its gone, its gone; that’s it, there’s no more – is the fact that the non-renewable resources industry is dominated by big money, and I mean really big money. In fact, the amounts of money we’re talking about are so huge that those who benefit from it are prepared to do anything to protect their interests in it. In fact, they are so intent on protecting their interests in it they are prepared to go to war for it.

However, they also have other ways of protecting their interests.

Going to war is not too much of a problem for those at the very top end of the non-renewable resources business, afterall, they don’t actually have to pay for the war; the blood and treasure that pays for war comes from ordinary people. But then, how do you get ordinary people to do that?

Well, that’s where people like Bolt come into it. They’re propagandists. Their job is to persuade you to support their interests. Their job is to influence public opinion to the point that the public will support their interests and support actions that protect their interest.

War, though, is not always an option. People won’t accept the idea of simply paying for and dying for a war that only makes the rich richer. There has to be an ulterior motive that the propagandists can work on in order to persuade the people to support such a war – retaliation for an attack against your country or a tyrant to topple. The propagandist’s art is to make it seem as though war and the reasons for war are spontaneous when in fact they are well planned prior to the events. For example, did you know that the US planned to attack the Taliban government of Afghanistan well before 9/11? And did you know that the neoconservatives backed by big oil interests had been looking for an excuse to get into Iraq ever since the first Gulf War?

Propagandists like Bolt were there to support the lies and distortions then and today is no different –he’s still there writing lies and distortions for the man that pays him.

Bolt is being paid by Murdoch to spin lies about climate change and the associated policies designed to protect our environment. You see, Murdoch’s interests are not just in the media and entertainment business; Murdoch also has interests in the resources business. He is a substantial shareholder in a shale oil company called Genie Energy. And, have you ever wondered why Murdoch is so pro-Zionist despite not actually being Jewish? It’s not because he’s a Christian Zionist; it’s because he has a substantial interest in a company called Israeli Energy Initiatives, Ltd.

Today, Bolt has bent over backwards to protect Murdoch’s non-renewable energy resources by endorsing Murdoch’s tweets about Carbon Tax which, of course, goes hand in hand with their denial of climate change and the stance against sustainable energy technologies and just about anything that smacks of ‘green’. But what Bolt fails to mention is Murdoch’s interests in the oil and gas industries.

The bottom line is; Andrew Bolt is paid directly to write propaganda that protects the non-renewable resources interests of his boss Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch’s associates. It’s as simple as that no matter what way Bolt cares to spin it.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013


The right-wing of both sides of politics has now moved to make the boatpeople issue the centrepiece of the upcoming election. Both Liberal and Labor racists are now scrambling to outdo each other in the chase for the racist voter within Labor’s ranks.

Liberal voters are already committed to voting for Abbott. However, there are many voters out there who would traditionally vote Labor but may reconsider who they give their vote to if the Liberals come up with a ‘better’ final solution to the boatpeople problem to that of Labor’s. By ‘better’ I mean less expensive because the knee-jerk Labor solution that flies everyone that arrives here by boat out to PNG with no chance of ever settling in Australia is going to be massively expensive. And, while it may slow the boats down, it will not stop them.

Now the Liberals have come up with a new plan; they want to use the Australian military to somehow stop the boats though they haven’t revealed exactly how they’re going to do this. They’re going to call it Operation Sovereign Borders. With a name like that, anyone would think we were at war defending our shores against a foreign invader – but that, of course, is exactly what they want people to think.

Both parties are now pandering exclusively to Australia’s racists in order to grab power. The boatpeople have become a political football with each side telling the voter that they are going to be tougher on boatpeople than the other side. The issue has become an obsession. The Labor excuse is that it will stop the drownings while the Liberals use every other excuse under the sun as to why boatpeople shouldn’t be allowed to come to Australia ranging from ‘terrorists sneaking in among them’, to ‘queue jumping’, to ‘economic refugees’, etc.

But we all know the real reasons they don’t want them here; it’s because they are racists. Pure and simple.

Details of Abbott’s ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ can be found here.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013


There are several kinds of racists in Australia. There are those that make no bones about their racism and simply tell you that they don’t want non-white or Islamic immigrants in Australia no matter how they arrive. These people are the die-hard rednecked white supremacists in our midst.

Then there are those that tell us ‘I’m not a racist, but…’ These are the racists that believe there is a place in the world for other peoples… but not here in Australia. These are the monoculturalists who believe that multiculturalism is upsetting the status quo of the society they believe they should dominate. These people are intolerant of the changes in Australian culture that result from the influx of migrants who have different cultures.

Then there are the most disgusting type of racists of all; those that deny they are racists and pretend to be sympathetic and even caring of those they actually prefer not to have in Australia living among them. These are the people who would deny boatpeople access to Australia on the pretext that they care about the potential of lives being lost at sea as they try to reach Australia. Instead they would prefer to have those that do arrive in Australia flown out to places they don’t want to be and into camps that operate in appalling conditions and for unknown durations. These are the sickest of racists who have jumped on the patronising bandwagon of pretending to be ‘tough to be kind’. These sick racists are prepared to lock up innocent and often traumatised men, women and children in places they don’t want to be, in camps that offer no hope of certain freedom and for unknown periods of time. And all this, they are quite happy to admit, is just to deter others from trying to reach Australia.

Make no mistake; these people are as racist as all the others. The only difference is they try to worm their way into the hearts and minds of those of us that truly do care about refugees that want to come here and know that there are other ways of getting asylum seekers safely to Australia without getting on leaky boats.

Beware the caring pretenders; they are the sickest of racists.

Friday, July 19, 2013


With an election looming, Kevin Rudd has caved in to Australia’s Labor voters who, like their Liberal counterparts, dream up every conceivable excuse as to why boatpeople shouldn’t be allowed access to Australia while trying desperately to avoid being labelled ‘racists’, a characterisation which they emphatically deny.

Most of those who were dead-set against allowing boatpeople into Australia seem to now applaud Rudds latest plan – at least from the point of view of no more boatpeople coming to Australia. But now, one has to ask, where are the excuses that the racists used to argue their point? Now that they’re to be shuffled off to PNG, it seems that the ‘queue-jumping’ label has gone out the window. Suddenly the racists couldn’t care less about the ‘queue’. Has the ‘queue’ disappeared? And will the racists who pretended to care about the safety of boatpeople during the crossing to Australia by boat still be as vocal about ‘stopping the boats’ coming to Australia now that they’ll be moved on to PNG – if they survive the crossing?

And what of the cost? Will Australians be prepared to pay PNG the huge amounts of money that this undertaking is likely to cost? If there’s any arguments from the Liberals about the cost of all this, it will only be because there’s an election looming and they didn’t come up with the idea first. But then, how could they? They needed to be in government in order to have negotiated the deal with the PNG government.

The reality is that the cost of the deal is far more than it would cost to simply allow boatpeople to stay in Australia and get them working to pay their own way. As a result, one can almost see a formula developing whereby the acceptance of the excessive cost of the deal over and above having them in Australia is directly proportional to the extent of racism in Australia. In other words, the real measure of the extent of Australia’s racism will be how much they are prepared to pay in order to keep boatpeople out of Australia – and it’s shaping up to be a lot.

What Australian’s need to do is face up to is its global responsibilities. When a country goes off and invades another – for whatever reason – then the invader needs to be responsible for the repercussions. And the same applies when one country applies sanctions against another. Australia has been a part of both types of actions against nations. We were part of the invasion of Afghanistan even though Afghanistan was not a threat to Australia, and Australia was a part of the immoral, if not illegal, invasion of Iraq despite Iraq also not being a threat to Australia. It is now a part of a sanctions program aimed at Iran over its nuclear weapons ambitions, despite not a skerrick of evidence suggesting Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. And we are wondering why Iranians are fleeing Iran?

If the West left these places alone to find their own way in the world, we’d all be a lot better off. Instead we make up lies and find excuses to continue to do what the West has always done; invade, dominate and loot the wealth of countries with different cultures to ours and then deny them the right to share their culture with ours. The racist haters of multiculturalism seem to be winning. Are we really going to let that happen?

Monday, July 15, 2013


In his column today Bolt writes about last night’s Q&A program complaining that the Left was over represented because only two of the six on the panel were right-wing. In complaining, however, Bolt exposed both his homophobia and his racism in just one sentence. One of the panellists was newsreader Narelda Jacobs who Bolt described as “lesbian Aboriginal newsreader Narelda Jacobs”.

For some reason Bolt failed to describe Defence Minister Stephen Smith, another of the panellists, as “heterosexual white European politician Stephen Smith”.

I can’t think why Bolt would be so remiss!

Wednesday, July 10, 2013


Within Australia’s mainstream media there exists a core of ‘journalists’ who between them are responsible for Australia’s current spate of xenophobic racism; a racism that has been inspired by their hatred of boatpeople, Islam and multiculturalism.

Leading the pack at the gutter end of hate-mongering journalism are the likes of tabloid propagandists Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair and Piers Akerman who relentlessly offer their coterie of regular bloggies a never-ending stream of hate-filled posts which their salivating followers are invited to comment on. Meanwhile, pretending to be a little more up-market by passing themselves off as serious political and social commentators yet who peddle exactly the same message of hate and fear, are the likes of Janet Albrechtsen, Greg Sheridan, Gerard Henderson and Miranda Devine.

These are the hard core propagandists within the mainstream media who are largely responsible for Australia’s growing reputation – yet again – of being a racist, xenophobic and intolerant nation.

Their modus operandi is simple. They follow an age-old formula that propagandists have used for years. They cherry-pick a fault of an individual or group who happen to be from a culture/race/religion that is the propagandists target de jour and then, either implicitly or explicitly, say that the fault – and it could be anything – is because of their culture/race/religion. This is then extended to all people of the same culture/race/religion inferring that they have the same fault when invariably the fact that a person is of any culture/race/religion is purely incidental or that the individual or group has abused their culture/race/religion and misrepresented it. The misrepresentation in that case would be ignored by Murdoch’s propaganda crew. And, yes, all of the above mentioned propagandists work for Murdoch either directly or indirectly.

As has been mentioned in the past, if these people were merely wing-nut conspiracy theorists on the edge of the blogosphere pushing the fear-mongering nonsense that Muslims want to rule the world then they could easily and effectively be ignored. Trouble is though, they’re not. These people are wing-nut conspiracy theorists that have centre stage and a huge audience and are able to reach the gullible with ease who readily accepts the hate-filled garbage of Murdoch’s propagandists.

They need to be challenged, not ignored.

Monday, July 8, 2013


With a headline screaming “Terrorise the gangs as they terrorise us” Bolt makes a thinly veiled and implicit incitement to violence toward those who he implies are Islamic migrants. In doing so Bolt gets close to crossing the line of provoking racial violence just with the headline alone.

He also implies that the law should be discriminatory by having the police and other law enforcement agents target ‘gangs’ and that they should then be further discriminated against by the judiciary who Bolt suggests should give these people jail sentences for trivial offences or, in a direct reference to migrants, deported.

While Bolt has been very careful not to refer specifically to Muslims in this particular article, Bolt’s almost daily well-known and relentless anti-Islamic and anti-multicultural tirade elsewhere at his blog and in his writings make it quite clear exactly who Bolt is referring to in this particular article.

Bolt’s article should be at least reported to the Australian Press Council and the article’s headline should be investigated as to whether or not Bolt is inciting vigilante violence or has even committed an offence.

Sunday, July 7, 2013


Bolt has sunk to seriously delusional depths today. As he has done in the past, he attempts to equate today's Greens of Australia with the Nazis of the last century.

Because many Germans between the wars took to ideas that today might be considered ‘green’, Bolt seems to think that ‘greenness’ is somehow part of Nazi ideology and that, therefore, today's modern Greens are actually Nazi. This kind of Boltologic demonstrates how grossly delusional he has become.

The reality is that Bolt is far closer to Nazi-style ideology than any other political grouping in Australia. The only difference today between the Nazis of Germany in the 1920s through to the 1940s and Bolt’s extreme right-wing ideology is that the Nazis anti-Semitism has been replaced by Bolt’s own peculiar style of racism which expounds hatred of non-white Australians and all things Islamic. Bolt’s penchant for Australian militarism, support of wars against Islamic nations, hero-worshipping of Australia’s military dead, war-mongering propaganda against Islamic governments, hatred of multiculturalism, denial of Aboriginal persecution, and hatred of the Left are all characteristics of the kind of ideology that was Nazism – and today is known as neo-Nazism. In other words, all Bolt is doing is projecting his own neo-Nazism on to those that he hates.


In his column today, Bolt attempts to introduce a racial element into an incident where no racial element is known. Bolt just assumes there must be a racial element involved. His article implies that the violent incident might have been a ‘cultural’ thing and suggests that the original reports of the incident should have included racial descriptions of those involved. Bolt’s bloggies then pick and run with the racist abuse in the accompanying comments.

Bolt must be getting desperate. Pushing racism from stories that have nothing to do with race really is gutter journalism. It also exposes Bolt for what he really is, and a more blatant piece of non-story racist propaganda would be hard to find anywhere else… except maybe at Murdoch’s other propaganda blogs where the likes of Tim Blair and Piers Akerman hang out.

Monday, June 24, 2013


In Boltworld, any Muslim preaching extremist views represents all of Islam and, therefore, so Bolt implies, all Muslims are extremists. This is how he does it.

Bolt writes: “Australian Islamist Musa Cerantonio is just one of many of the “tiny minority” who shout hatred and wink at extreme violence, stirring a potentially lethal anger.” Putting quote marks around ‘tiny minority’ is the giveaway in Bolthink.

But, as always with Bolt, reality is something completely different.

With something like 1.57 billion adherents to Islam, or about 23% of the world’s population, Cerantonio actually is just one of an extremely tiny minority within the Islamic world. And, just as Cerantonio represents just a very tiny minority of Muslims on our planet, so Andrew Bolt, a racist extremist preaching hatred of Islam, is really only representative of a tiny minority of the Western world.

But, whereas Cerantonio’s words reaches the ears of just a few, which, ironically, is helped along by the likes of Bolt who highlights Cerantonio’s words, Bolt has a much wider audience via the mainstream media and through TV through which he delivers his message of hate.

As well as using the mainstream media, Bolt also uses other Islamophobic resources. In his article, Bolt links to a website called MEMRI-TV, an American anti-Islam site set up by fanatical Islamophobic neocon/Zionists Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser, a former senior official in the Pentagon during the Bush era. MEMRI’s original mission statement read: “In its research, the institute puts emphasis on the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel.” In other words, MEMRI is just yet another neocon propaganda hate site designed to feed the likes of Bolt with material which he then uses to preach his own brand of Islamophobic hatred.   

Friday, June 21, 2013


In his unrelenting quest to demonise African refugees Bolt writes in his column today:
“Our refugee program seems to pose a danger to Australians. Those who say it’s racist to say so should worry more about the “racist” reaction if these dangers are not tackled fast”.

One wonders why Bolt always picks on non-white immigrants. If it’s not Africans, then its Afghans. If it’s not Afghans, then its Iraqis. It’s never Germans or Irish or British or Canadians. Occasionally it’s New Zealanders – but then only if they are Maori.

And what’s ‘the “racist” reaction’ he’s on about? Does he think in his addled mind that it is non-white immigrants that arrive in Australia that are racist against white Australians? If so, I wonder why that would be. Or is it the other way around where, because of the non-white immigrant’s behaviour, white Australians are becoming racist as a reaction. But then you’d have to ask why young non-white immigrants behave the way they do. Bolt seems to think it’s because they were made that way because they’re… well, non-white. It wouldn’t occur to him that people in groups, regardless of where they are from, tend to behave badly in public as a reaction to the discriminating way they are treated in the community when it comes to work opportunities and housing.

And what provokes this cycle of discrimination and racist turmoil against non-white Australians? People like Andrew Bolt.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013


In his column today, Andrew ‘Cut and Paste’ Bolt uses a piece by notorious fascist Murdoch writer Greg Sheridan to tell their collective audiences that Iranian, Lebanese, Somali, Afghan and Pakistani are only seeking asylum in Australia because they are, as Sheridan puts it, “aspirational immigrants”.

Well, why not?

If you needed to flee your homeland because of war or other dire threats to yourself and your family, why would you choose to flee a to country that’s as bad as the one you’re fleeing from but just a bit safer? Surely one should ‘aspire’ to go somewhere better. And, if one has the ability to get to Australia because it is a country full of opportunities, then why should folk not come here?

What both Bolt and Sheridan seem to have forgotten is that both of their forebears did exactly the same thing – come to Australia as ‘aspirational immigrants’. If it’s good enough for them, why is it not good enough for those wanting to seek refuge here?

There is only one reason why Bolt and Sheridan are happy to have white migrants come to Australia as ‘aspirational immigrants’ but refuse to accept refugees from Middle Eastern, Central Asian and African nations and that’s because these people aren’t white.

Bolt and Sheridan; hypocrites as well as racists.  

Sunday, June 16, 2013


The apparent escalation of the civil war in Syria where the US has agreed to supply arms to the rebels and the Iranians have decided to send a contingent of some 4000 troops to help Syrian President Bashir al-Assad fight the rebels, was all the Islamophobic racist and fearmonger Andrew Bolt needed to promote fear and hatred of Islam in Australia.

In his blog today, Bolt says that, as a result of Australia’s immigration policies of allowing Islamic people into Australia, Australia’s suburbs are likely to become a battlefield as Sunni-Shia tensions spill into the streets beyond Syria. And, of course, innocent Aussies will be caught up in the cross-fire of violence that Bolt sees coming Australia’s way.

For Bolt the war in Syria is merely another opportunity to perpetuate his hatred of Islam. Instead of using his influence to find Australian Sunni and Shia leaders to come on to his Bolt Report show in order to attempt to calm things down on Australia’s streets, he prefers to invite racist lunatics like MP George Brandis who’s keen to deport any non-white refugee if they commit a crime. Instead of making an effort to help keep Australia peaceful in a much more useful way, he prefers to present his ideas of ‘keeping Australia peaceful’ by promoting his own brand of Islamophobic racism.
It’s bad enough that Sunni and Shia feel the need to fight each other in Syria, but it’s something else when racists like Bolt abuse the crisis to push their own agenda of fear and hatred.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013


It’s not really enough to merely criticise Bolt’s racist Islamophobic ways. Nor is it enough to simply demand that Bolt be removed from the mainstream media where he abuses the right to free speech in order to peddle his hatreds and fear-mongering paranoia on a daily basis.

In order to create the conditions that will lead to Bolt’s downfall, it is essential that criticism of Bolt be accompanied by clear and concise argument that rebuts and lays bear his every claim exposing him for the propagandist that he is.

This in itself is a difficult task for various reasons, not least of which is the fact that Bolt’s commentary at his blog and his TV stint on a full-time and full-pay basis allows him to be relentless in his peddling of hate and fear. Because of this, it would require an army of people to counter every word he said or wrote.

However, Bolt does have his weaknesses; he’s repetitive and he’s predictable. He also hates being tied up with legal suits or even being threatened with legal suits. It’s a case of once bitten, twice shy. It also costs Murdoch a lot of money in lawyer’s fees. This means he has to think carefully about what he writes and often needs to run stuff past his newspapers legal people before he publishes some material. He’s even been barred from moderating his own blog because of fear of legal action.

So, how does one set about taking Bolt down? The best way which avoids any claims that he is being deprived of his freedom of speech is to make him accountable for what he says by proving and demonstrating that his rants are based on nothing other than racial prejudice and paranoid hatreds; in short, proving beyond doubt that he is, despite his denials, nothing other than a hate-filled racist.

One way to make him accountable is to make the fullest use of the Australian Press Council. To challenge Bolt directly via email or even via his blog will get you nowhere; he’ll ignore it if you email him or simply not publish your comments at his blog. A complaint to the APC, however, is something neither he nor his publishers can ignore. The complaint, though, has to be legitimate. One needs to show clearly some deliberately misleading fault or clear lie in his journalism. The process is also very time consuming.

A far better way of making Bolt accountable for what he says is via the use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and so on. Folk should be encouraged to write their criticisms of Bolt but include in that criticism a debunking of what he says and, importantly, provide irrefutable evidence that supports ones debunking argument.

It’s not an easy task; Bolt is articulate and experience has taught him to be careful about his use of words. But, in the end, the only way to make Bolt accountable is to beat him at his own game and that is by creating as wide an audience as possible that will expose him for what he really is.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013


In light of the spate of sickening news about beheadings and other atrocious acts against children by Jihadists, the Islamophobic Andrew Bolt has taken the opportunity to blame the atrocities on Islam. He says, “There is something sick in a faith which inspires such horrific cruelty.” But the reality is; it’s not the Islamic faith that inspires such atrocious acts as Bolt would have us believe, it is merely mindless hatred – the same kind of mindless hatred that inspired US soldier Robert Bales to go out and kill 16 innocent Afghan civilians.

It’s also the same kind of mindless hatred that inspired the Catholic Christopher Columbus to slaughter thousands of ‘heathen’ Caribbean natives in the late 1490’s and early 1500’s. The religion hasn’t changed; it’s just that the hatred has subsided. Catholics no longer go around burning and killing those who refuse to become or remain Catholic – well, generally they don’t.

But, for Bolt, whose hatred of Islam is as blind as some of those that hate in the name of their religion, the stories of atrocities are just another excuse to peddle his own hatreds.

Monday, June 10, 2013


Andrew Bolt’s obsession with race and immigration is bordering on psychotic as he launches into yet another tirade against immigration on his blog at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun.
In today’s foaming-at-the-mouth rant Bolt cherry-picks a quote caught on video where a young Australian Muslim says that the British soldier killed in Britain was a ‘dog’ because he was in Islamic countries killing Muslims. Bolt starts by giving his post the title “Sydney Muslims tell 60 Minutes the near-beheaded Lee Rigby was a ‘dog’” utilising the classic Islamophobic propagandists trick of inferring that, as in this case, the view of a couple of local Muslim street lads represents the view of all of Sydney’s Muslims.

Bolt then goes on to say, using an appropriately patronising tone, “First we give their families a home, and then they give their loyalty to head-hacking enemies of the West…” The reality is that the young men that were giving the interview did not at all imply any ‘loyalty’ to anyone except their God and were merely expressing their view that, because Lee Rigby had volunteered to be in an army that would send him to Afghanistan where he would likely be killing Muslims, he was therefore a ‘dog’ and they therefore had no sympathy for him.

At this point Bolt then broadens his now familiar rhetorical style and rails against immigration generally by linking to his post of yesterday when he had a go at African immigrants in a nifty but very transparent attempt to cast all non-white and Islamic immigrants in the same mould.   

Sunday, June 9, 2013


I wrote the following article over year ago about Bolt’s hatred and demonising of African immigrants in Australia. Today Bolt continues his disgusting rant about African immigrants and Australians who have an African background. Read his nonsense here before reading what I wrote last year.

Below is what I wrote last year. Nothing changes with Bolt – and Murdoch still provides a platform for Bolt’s racism.

In his online blog today at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun newspaper, Andrew Bolt, a well known convicted Australian racist, has suggested that Australia stop allowing black African migrants into Australia.

The article is probably the most blatant piece of racism yet from Bolt who usually attempts to avoid being so obvious about his racism.

Bolt uses an article in the Age newspaper as an opportunity to peddle his hatred. The article tells of a group of Australian students who happen to be black who are complaining of police harassment when they visit the inner city in Melbourne. They have said that many of them are getting fed up with this harassment and, if it continues, there could possibly be a backlash such as there was last August in the UK when Londoners rioted over the death of a black Londoner who was shot to death by the police.

Racism, sponsored deliberately by the likes of Andrew Bolt and his fellow Murdoch so-called ‘journalists’ like the Islamophobic Tim Blair, Piers Akerman, et al, is marginalising black youth in Melbourne who, in turn, look to each other for socialising and studying whilst readying themselves for work – if they can get it.

It’s time to end racism in Australia. Bolt’s blatant racism should never be allowed to take hold in Australia.

Saturday, June 1, 2013


Going almost unnoticed in the Australian media was the news that all 105 members of Australia’s opposition parliamentarians became signatories to the ‘London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism’ during budget week last month.

The Declaration could possibly become the foundation for new laws that might restrict criticism of Israel in Australia as part of the Coalitions proposed revamping of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act – the same act which, under Section 18C, Andrew Bolt was successfully prosecuted when he racially vilified a number of indigenous Australians.

The Declaration, based on the European Union’s EUMC ‘Working Definition of anti-Semitism’, consists of some 34 recommendations that it says governments should enact to combat anti-Semitism.

The problem with the Declaration is that embedded in it are recommendations that suggest that not only should vilification of Jews as a race, ‘individually’ or ‘collectively’, become illegal but criticism of Israel as a state, presumably because it calls itself a ‘Jewish State’ and is, therefore, collectively Jewish, should also be considered as anti-Semitism and so should be made illegal. For example, the ‘Working Definition of anti-Semitism’ says that “claiming the State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and such criticism should be labelled as ‘anti-Semitic’. The Declaration ignores entirely the fact that Israel is not a ‘Jewish state’ as some 22% of its population are Arab.

The ‘Working Definition’ also suggests that “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is also ‘anti-Semitic’. So too, according to the ‘Working Definition’, is “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel… than to the interests of their own nations”.

While there are many appropriate recommendations that go toward combating anti-Semitism within the documents, those mentioned above, and others, are wholly inappropriate and should not be included in either the ‘Declaration’ or ‘Working Definitions’ and completely excluded from any future legislation in Australia or anywhere else on the planet.

Friday, May 31, 2013


In his column today the ‘Julius Streicher’ of the Australian extreme right and convicted racist Andrew Bolt desperately attempts again to defend the young girl that racially vilified AFL footballer Adam Goodes.

Bolt characterises her as simply being a “thirteen year-old girl who was possibly misunderstood, given that the bearded Goodes is hirsute and the girl said she did not know ‘ape’ can have a racist connotation”. Describing Goodes as ‘hirsute’ is in itself demeaning in the context that Bolt uses the descriptor since Goodes is far from ‘hirsute’ (abnormally or overly hairy); he merely has a beard just like many men of all races.

As for the assertion that “she did not know ‘ape’ can have racist connotation”, the fact is that her intent was not to laud Goodes (would she have used the word ‘ape’ if she wanted to heap praise on him?) but to insult him by inferring that he was an inferior being. She didn’t consciously think to herself; ‘I know; I’ll racially abuse him. That should demonstrate my loathing and contempt for him’, but, rather, she intuitively chose to racially abuse him demonstrating not only her loathing and contempt for him anyway but also refecting the kind of social environment she was raised in.

The likes of Bolt are responsible for perpetuating that social environment in Australia.

Monday, May 27, 2013


Andrew Bolt is such an obsessed racist that it seems to have affected his mental stability. Proof of his madness lays in his rant at his blog today where he asserts that:

No, I jest not. This is exactly what he wrote. Check it out for yourself.

Bolt comes out with some outrageous nonsense sometimes but surely this is solid proof of his obsessive delusional disorder; an obsession bordering on psychosis for which he should seek help.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013


The so-called ‘war on terror’ is now seen for what it really is; a euphemism for a war against Islam. It began as a war fuelled by Western greed and power as European colonialists divided and conquered Islamic lands in order to plunder their riches. The war about religion and beliefs had long run its earlier course during the Crusades. By the nineteenth and twentieth century it was no longer about religion; it was about oil. Today it has come full circle; it’s still about oil, as well as regional control and hegemony, but for those that resent the West’s intrusion into their lands and the plundering of their wealth, religion has become the means rather than the reason for their determination to fight back.

As Europeans and Americans colonised and controlled Islamic lands through war and influence so Islamic peoples, many of them fleeing the war poverty colonialists had brought to them, searched for a better life in the West. But, wherever they went to settle in Western lands, racism was all that greeted them. Even those that had converted to Christianity were not immune from attack. Colour alone was enough to cause abuse. Anti-discrimination laws needed to be enacted in a bid to stop racism but it was never enough. The abuse continued and in the sixties many African-Americans and those of West Indian and African descent in Europe began to turn to Islam as they rejected Western abuse.

Then 9/11 happened. The West’s ‘war on terror’ was soon seen as a war against Islam. Islam in Europe and the US at first rejected the violence the West accused the Muslim extremists of committing but then those Muslims in the West became victimised themselves by the communities they lived in. While wars raged in the Middle East and Central Asia, hatreds fuelled by resentments have now boiled over into the streets of Europe and America. And fuelling the resentments is a mainstream media full of racists dedicated to stirring up hatreds by relentlessly demeaning and marginalising Muslims that live in the West.

Wanton acts of extreme violence by those that profess to be Muslims are held up as being typical of all Muslims. Their violence is used to promote more hatred and so the cycle of violence and hatreds are perpetuated.

The recent violence in the West by radicalised Muslims – the Boston bombings; the riots in Sweden; the horrific hacking to death of a soldier on London’s streets – are all as a result of the West’s media promoting Western exceptionalism and demonising Islam.

Rupert Murdoch’s various mainstream media outlets have all played a major role in the promotion of these hatreds. In the US commentators at Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal have contributed to the hatred; in the UK Murdoch’s Sun and The Times newspaper have made their contribution to inspire hatred. In Australia racists like Tim Blair (read the comments that accompany this lunatics propaganda) and Piers Akerman at Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph in Sydney (who even tried to blame the Victorian bushfires of 2009 on Islamists), and Andrew Bolt at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun in Melbourne have all sought to promote hatred of Islam throughout the West. Their hatreds inspire revenge. These hate merchants at Murdoch’s online papers open their columns to comments from people who are attracted to this kind of Islamophobic racism. For the most part dissenting comments are not tolerated.

As a result, the worldwide anti-Islam movement is growing. The extreme right-wing racist neo-Nazi English Defence League has already organised anti-Islam demonstrations as a reaction to the slaying of a British soldier in London yesterday.

As the hatreds of each side feed off each other, so the violence associated with those hatreds grow. Provocations by the right-wing arm of the mainstream media, mostly belonging to Murdoch, do nothing to relieve the problem; they only fuel the hatreds that radicalise people from both sides.