A river of crocodile tears and hypocrisy won’t silence the Australian people

This was originally published on Incite Politics.

Incite is a subscriber blog, so I re-post original articles after a couple of weeks.

Another truckload of diversity. But you're not allowed to talk about that
Another truckload of diversity. But you’re not allowed to talk about that

When a politician turns on the waterworks in parliament, you can be absolutely certain that they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Like pearl-clutching about “But think of the children!”, blubbering pollies are deceitfully trying to use cheap emotionalism to circumvent debate. When you can’t come up with a rational argument, break out the Kleenex instead.

When Fraser Anning used his debut senate speech to call for a vote on Muslim immigration to Australia – at least half of the Australian public want a ban – the political elite suffered a collective fit of the vapours. Pearls were clutched and hankies were wrung.

Much of Anning’s speech was dumb stuff, and even Pauline Hanson was “appalled” by it. But, even as the elites deceitfully conflate criticism of a religious ideology with “racism”, as they always do, his central point – a peoples’ vote on immigration, and Muslim immigration especially – is worth debating. Vitally so. Douglas Murray, for instance, has urged Australia not to repeat the mistakes of Europe, with mass Muslim immigration. Australia’s population is skyrocketing ahead of even the wildest forecasts of demographers, with the attendant strain on not just infrastructure but social cohesion.

This is an argument Australia has to have. It’s also an argument the elites and their leftist camp-followers are determined not to let the people of Australia have. Any criticism of the twin gods of mass-migration and capital-M Multiculturalism is met with a hyperventilating chorus of screeches of “Racism!” and floods of fake tears. This is pathetic.

Anning was also guilty of using incredibly stupid and unnecessary rhetoric. Even a mentally-challenged schoolchild could have warned him that using the phrase “Final Solution” in a speech about immigration wasn’t the wisest of moves.

But the hypocrisy and opportunism of the elites who pounced, wailing and weeping, on the phrase is beyond belief. Is “final solution” now a couplet which cannot be uttered under any circumstances? Is Pere Ubu’s 1976 punk classic of the same name to be banned from the airwaves?

In any case, if inflammatory phrases and “hate speech” are to be condemned, then weepin’, wailin’ Anne Aly has some explaining to do. After all, in 2015 Aly wrote to try and reduce the sentence of jailed hate preacher Junaid Thorne. Last year, Aly was talking about how, “If you see a cockroach and squish it, you don’t squish the cockroach because you’re angry at it…You squish the cockroach because you’re disgusted by it”. Comparing people to cockroaches is exactly the language used by the genocides in Rwanda. Aly is talkin’ genocide-talk.

Or, more likely, she is using a problematic phrase in a different context. Which, as it happens, is exactly what Anning did. So, put the hankies away, and spare us the virtue-signalling blubbering.

Sam Harris said that the dogma of Multiculturalism has meant that any reasonable discussion of Islam and immigration has been resolutely stamped out by the PC panjandrums. When sensible people are forbidden from speaking, only the extremists are left shouting: “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists”. Thinkers across the political spectrum, from Nick Cohen to Thomas Sowell, have written that the left’s obsession with stamping out discussion about race has actually facilitated racism.

By refusing to allow a public debate on Islam and immigration, because they live in terror that the voting public will see through their chuntering claptrap, the left-wing elite have actually facilitated the rise of people like Fraser Anning. They then act as if floods of ostentatious tears will act as some kind of magic force-field against the monster they have created.

Fraser Anning is dumb and ugly. But even the ugliest of stopped clocks is right twice a day. Most of Anning’s maiden speech was nasty and reactionary, but his central argument was spot-on. Ordinary Australians are not stupid, no matter what the insular snobs of the chattering classes may think. When crime gangs are wreaking a reign of terror across Melbourne, when concrete bollards are sprouting across formerly open and relaxed Australian cities, when heavily armed guards patrol our civic institutions, and when threatening spectres draped in head to foot black tents are gliding through even the sleepiest Tasmanian towns, Australians can plainly see that something is going on.

And they are going to talk about it.

One thought on “A river of crocodile tears and hypocrisy won’t silence the Australian people

  1. Frankly, I think Fraser Anning is a bloody hero. Straight talking, masculine, unflappable Ozzie bloke. Love that he wouldn’t apologise for his “final solution” line, no matter how hard they pushed him to. If he had’ve said “final analysis” the same outcry would’ve taken place – they’d have found a way to segue from that to the Holocaust; these are their tactics over and over and over.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s