Photo of the Day

Kaytn massacre: This 1952 photo, shows a view of a partially emptied mass grave in the Katyn forest where approximately 22,000 Polish men were killed. Declassified documents add proof that the U.S. government helped cover up the Soviets’ responsibility.

The Hill of Goats

?Impossible to tell when I will return home..

Katyn Forest is a wooded area near Gneizdovo village, a short distance from Smolensk in Russia where, in 1940 on Stalin’s orders, the NKVD shot, and buried over 4000 Polish service personnel that had been taken prisoner when the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939 in WW2 in support of the Nazis.

In 1943 the Nazis exhumed the Polish dead and blamed the Soviets. In 1944, having retaken the Katyn area from the Nazis, the Soviets exhumed the Polish dead again and blamed the Nazis. The rest of the world took its usual sides in such arguments.

In 1989, with the collapse of Soviet Power, Premier Gorbachev finally admitted that the Soviet NKVD had executed the Poles, and confirmed two other burial sites similar to the site at Katyn. Stalin’s order of March 1940 to execute by shooting some 25,700 Poles, including those found at the three sites, was also disclosed with the collapse of Soviet Power. This particular second world war slaughter of Poles is often referred to as the “Katyn Massacre” or the “Katyn Forest Massacre”.

Read more »

Boris Johnson on Matt Taylor’s “offensive” shirt

Boris Johnson was also upset at Dr Matt Taylor’s shirt, it brought tears of rage…that people could abuse him for wearing such a thing.

The other day the brilliant space scientist Dr Matt Taylor was asked to give a report on the progress of Philae, the astonishing little landing craft that has travelled, in all, four billion miles to become the first representative of humanity to visit the surface of a comet. Dr Taylor leant forwards. He started to speak. Then his voice went husky, and it became painfully obvious to viewers that he was actually crying. And of course he has many very good reasons to feel emotional. The London-born astrophysicist has been part of a mind-blowing success.


Except, of course, that he wasn?t crying with relief. He wasn?t weeping with sheer excitement at this interstellar rendezvous. I am afraid he was crying because he felt he had sinned. He was overcome with guilt and shame for wearing what some people decided was an ?inappropriate? shirt on television. ?I have made a big mistake,? he said brokenly. ?I have offended people and I am sorry about this.?

I watched that clip of Dr Taylor?s apology ? at the moment of his supreme professional triumph ? and I felt the red mist come down. It was like something from the show trials of Stalin, or from the sobbing testimony of the enemies of Kim Il-sung, before they were taken away and shot. It was like a scene from Mao?s cultural revolution when weeping intellectuals were forced to confess their crimes against the people.

Why was he forced into this humiliation? Because he was subjected to an unrelenting tweetstorm of abuse. He was bombarded across the internet with a hurtling dustcloud of hate, orchestrated by lobby groups and politically correct media organisations.

And so I want, naturally, to defend this blameless man. And as for all those who have monstered him and convicted him in the kangaroo court of the web ? they should all be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, I suppose some might say that his Hawaii shirt was a bit garish, a bit of an eyeful. But the man is not a priest, for heaven?s sake. He is a space scientist with a fine collection of tattoos, and if you are an extrovert space scientist, that is the kind of shirt that you are allowed to wear. ? Read more »

A few thoughts on the new Alliance

With the left wing shamelessly selling out to Kim Dotcom in the creation of the new Alliance I thought I’d share some thoughts.

One thing we do know is that left wingers are prepared to sell their souls if the ends justifies the means.

Read what Martyn Bradbury has to say:

I just don?t believe we have the luxury of telling the 285 000 kids in poverty that we preferred principled opposition than pragmatic co-operation.?

There you have it…money trumps principles…the very thing that Martyn Bradbury and his little band of socialist dreamers rail against the right for allegedly doing we see them jumping in boots and all. For just a few shiny shekels the hard left of NZ politics has dropped their trousers.

For all of the accusation they have leveled and continue to level against John banks they are doubly worse. When John Banks received a donation it was in his mind “NO strings attached”. Kim Dotcom thought he was buying favours but John Banks could not be bought and so we arrived at the point where we are today with John Banks stitched up on trial by the manipulations and mistruths by Kim Dotcom and his band of enablers and at the same time the left-wing selling their principles for a bit of german loot.

One thing we will be hearing no more from the left-wing though is the description of the coat tail provisions of MMP as a dirty little rort like in Epsom. In fact I await the lengthy posts, articles and television utterances of Patrick Gower about the dirty deals being done on the left. He will no doubt put as much effort and vigour into his reporting of that like he has done with his kickings over Epsom and Ohariu. Or will he? I suspect not.

Dodgy deals and rorts seem to be only done by the right, and not the left. It is a dodgy deal in Epsom but pragmatic use of the MMP system in Te Tai Tokerau. It is dodgy for the right to receive donations from wealthy people but not dodgy for a foreigner interloper on criminal charges to?buy two whole political parties. ? ? Read more »

Andrew Bolt on Conroy’s Media Gagging Law

Andrew Bolt is loudly opposing Stephen Conroy’s media gagging attempts, as is the Murdoch stable with their front page campaign.

This was was the front page of the Sydney Daily Telegraph:



Bolt is on the attack, not only against Conroy but also against other journalists who he views as collaborators. Here is the first part of his column:

IT?S shocking enough the Gillard Government tries to muzzle journalists. Worse is that journalists cheer it on.

Even ministers privately believe what seems obvious: media laws proposed by the Government are revenge on its critics, especially News Ltd newspapers like this one.

Hear it from Fairfax?s Peter Hartcher, who?s spoken to more ministers than?ll speak to me.

Reports Hartcher: ?Labor?s leaders wanted to punish enemies – the Murdoch empire – … as they head for the exit, runs the theory held by some senior ministers.?? Read more »

Understanding why the left are nasty

? RealClearPolitics

The other night Pam Corkery exposed the nastiness of the left, Martyn Bradbury is another and in general the Labour party has well earned the title of the nastiest party in parliament. The left likes to think they are above the nasty, I even got an email the other day from a Labour MP professing all innocence of the nasty game…at the same time threatening to bring on ?a war against me.

They really are deluded. It is probably because they have been born and raised into the nasty side of politics:

Given how many more Americans define themselves as conservative rather than as liberal, let alone than as left, how does one explain the success of left-wing policies?

One answer is the appeal of entitlements and a desire to be taken care of. It takes a strong-willed citizen to vote against receiving free benefits. But an even greater explanation is the saturation of Western society by left-wing hate directed at the right. The left’s demonization, personal vilification, and mockery of its opponents have been the most powerful tools in the left-wing arsenal for a century.

Since Stalin labeled Leon Trotsky — the man who was the father of Russian Bolshevism! — a “fascist,” the Left has labeled its ideological opponents evil. And when you control nearly all of the news media and schools, that labeling works.

The liberal media even succeeded in blaming the right wing for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy even though his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a pro-Soviet, pro-Castro communist. Similarly, just one day after a deranged man, Jared Loughner, attempted to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six people in the process, The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that it was right-wing hate that had provoked Loughner: “It’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence. Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. . . .”

Krugman made it all up. But what matters to most of those who speak for the left is not truth. It is destroying the good name of its opponents. That is the modus operandi of the left.

It works.

Mallard compares John Key to Nazis

Trevor Mallard sickens me:

Comparing John Key to Nazis and Stalinists is despicable.

Wallace Chapman nails it

Wallace Chapman nails the whole Paul Henry issue in a very good post on the back Benches Website.

Now before all you pinko bleaters get all angry about his post, think that Wallace is actually a kaiviti, from Fiji, like me.

On my Facebook page I have only one quote. There will always be just this one quote. For me it is the ‘Rosetta stone’ of thinking, the golden crucible of thought that dates back to 18th Century Enlightenment thinking. It is the DNA of a free society. And it’s a quote that I’ve lived my life according to, since I was in my early 20’s. It is penned by the one of the most quoted people, not just in our time, but in any time? – alongside Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible. The quote is by U.S. academic Noam Avram Chomsky, and here it goes:

“If freedom of speech doesn’t apply to those that we despise, than the term has no meaning at all.”

Freedom of speech means hate-speech, love-speech, speeches we adore and speeches that fill us with contempt. It applies to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s rants at the UN, as much as it applies to Bill O Reilly’s violent outbursts on Fox TV (The Dixie Chicks need to shut up and be slapped around). As Chomsky points out, even Himmler and Goebbels in Nazi Germany were in favour of “free speech”. As long as you agreed with them. Stalin was in favour of free speech that was inoffensive to the State.

Wallace is right on the money. It is a pity the left wing don’t believe in free speech like their hero Noam Chomsky.

Interestingly, Chomsky himself has been at the brunt end of much sustained verbal abuse and vicious personal attacks and open slander. And yet he has never, over 50 years, sued for libel, preferring to write letters in an open forum, refuting and rebutting the attacks. The Jewish-American professor even defended the right of a neo-Nazi to stand up in a community hall in Battersea and say his piece while the rest of the crowd booed.

The United States, according to Chomsky, has set an extremely high bar in regards to freedom of speech since the 1960’s. Violent acts are not protected, but the Supreme Court has even upheld the principle of freedom of speech for Ku Klux Klan members.? In a revealing paragraph Chomsky states:

“In the US, freedom of speech is protected to an extent that I think is unheard of in any other country. This is quite a recent change. Since the 1960s the Supreme Court has set very high standards for freedom of speech, in keeping with a basic principle established by the 18th century Enlightenment. The court upholds the principle of free speech, the only limitation being participation in a criminal act. If I walk into a shop to commit a robbery with an accomplice holding a gun and I say “Shoot”, my words are not protected by the constitution. Otherwise there has to be a really serious motive to call into question freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has even upheld this principle for the benefit of members of the Ku Klux Klan.”

And this is exactly where we are at with Paul Henry, there was no criminal act and yet he has been effectively sacked for little more than having thoughts that differ from a vocal rabid mob out to get him.

I thought about all this in light of Paul Henry’s general broadcasting style. Personally I don’t find Henry funny but I don’t hate it. I just don’t give enough of a shit to turn on morning television so I never watch. But doing live unedited television and making it entertaining is an absolute skill, which is why all the fill-ins have come up short. And Paul Henry is a star at it. It’s a fairly predictable show often with a dog whistle to bullies, but it can also be funny in the way that ‘Beavis and Butthead’ can be funny. Or in the way that someone will fart in a lecture and everyone will split their sides. But more often I grimace and pretend to crack up when a friend tells me about a little Breakfast moment. The ‘retard’ routine wasn’t funny, nor the fake fan email at the awards, nor the moustache routine. The Dikshit name-calling was so unfunny I just felt sad. I felt sad for him, sad for me watching it, and sad for the huge community of Indian and Fiji-Indians in our country.

Do I defend the right to say what comes out of Paul Henry’s mouth? Do I defend the ugly humourless little tirades of Michael Laws? Do I defend the right for David Garrett to suggest, with a straight face, the sterilisation of women on the DPB? Do I defend what comes out of Lindsay Perigo’s mouth or Leighton Smith’s mouth or Hone Harawira’s mouth? Absolutely. As vigorously as I’ll defend the right to say what comes out of mine.

The principle of free speech is very simple: we either defend opinions that we find hateful, or we do not defend them at all. Public broadcasting or private.

Wallace Chapman has provided us with the most significant commentary on the whole sad sorry Paul Henry affair so far. He clearly says he doesn’t like what paul Henry said, yet he clearly says that Paul Henry had the right to say it.

Our country is poorer for the way Paul Henry has been effectively sacked from television by a bunch of rowdies being offended on someone?else’s?behalf.