BOLT THE HATE PREACHER ACCUSES ISLAMIC PREACHER OF PREACHING HATE

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.   

BOLT’S TWISTED LOGIC

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.

ANDREW BOLT AND GREG SHERIDAN: ONLY WHITES CAN SHARE IN AUSTRALIA’S RICHES

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.  

ANDREW BOLT USES SYRIAN CRISIS TO FAN FLAMES OF HATRED IN AUSTRALIA

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.

MAKING BOLT FULLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY WORD HE SAYS IS THE WAY TO BRING HIM DOWN

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.

ANDREW BOLT USES HATRED TO PERPETUATE HIS OWN HATREDS

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.

ANDREW BOLT: IN THE CLASSIC PROPAGANDISTS STYLE

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.   

BOLT THINKS AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS ARE TROUBLE BECAUSE THEY’RE… WELL, BECAUSE THEY’RE AFRICANS

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.

ARE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATIVES SET TO INTRODUCE LAWS AGAINST CRITICISING ISRAEL IF THEY WIN THE NEXT ELECTION?

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.