HOW MUCH DOES BOLT GET PAID TO PUSH HIS ANTI-CLIMATE CHANGE NONSENSE?

As we all know, Andrew Bolt is a staunch climate change denialist and pro-pollutionist. We know because he pushes his nonsense almost daily on his online blog at the Sun-Herald in Melbourne and quite frequently on his talk show The Bolt Report on Channel 10.

What’s not quite so well known is the reason why he so vehemently opposes climate change science. One possible answer is blindingly obvious; he gets paid to – and not just by Murdoch who, incidentally, has his own vested interest in denying climate change.

Bolt has extremely close ties with neoconservatives and is no doubt familiar with the various financial offerings made by neocon think tank organisations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that have offered up to $10,000 for articles that undermine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) reports.

One wonders how much of this money has found its way into Bolt’s coffers. You have to wonder who are paying his very significant legal bills and question where that money comes from and why they keep paying them.

Bolt is a paid propagandist but you can bet your boots it isn’t just Murdoch that’s paying his bills. One has to ask if, and how much, are neocon organisations like the AEI paying Bolt for his commentary – and whoever else.

BOLT EXPOSES HIS BLATANT RACISM

In his blog today Bolt continues with his Islamophobic obsession about Muslims migrating to Australia. In last Sunday’s Bolt Report Bolt asked Immigration Minister Scott Morrison if we shouldn’t be ‘screening people from or born of people from the Middle East for cultural compatibility’.

Bolt would argue that this is not racism because Islam is not a race but a religion. However, if one were to criticise Judaism, Bolt would be the first to accuse you, quite rightly, of anti-Semitism for being anti-Jewish yet Judaism is a religion and not a race. While it is true that most folk that practice Judaism are indeed Jewish, many are not racial Jews. Most are descendants of converts to Judaism but nonetheless, to criticise Judaism, regardless of whether or not those that practice Judaism are actually racial Jews, is still anti-Semitic. But that’s where the line is drawn. People like Bolt and his fellow neoconservatives would also accuse those who are anti-Zionism as being anti-Semite when the reality is that Zionism is a political ideology and race is incidental to that ideology with, again, most adherents being descendants of converts to Judaism. In short, to be anti-Judaism the religion is racist but to be anti-Zionist the political ideology is not.

By the same virtue, to be anti-Islam the religion, as Bolt and his fellow neoconservative are, is racist, while to be anti-jihad as a political creed is not.

Different religions are a part of many peoples culture and to discriminate against a culture often means discriminating against their religion and vice-versa. To discriminate against a culture by ‘screening for compatibility’ is racist. Racism is more than just being about blood and skin colour, it’s also about religion, heritage and culture. To discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion or culture is as much racism as discriminating against them on the basis of heir physical appearance such as skin colour or blood.