The Pickering Post
Friday, 15th December 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


POLITICAL PUNTING

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BLOG / FACEBOOK



A watershed election all right but not in the way anticipated. How can political pundits and polls (and Pickering) get it so wrong? How embarrassing! How can a Party called UKIP garner four million votes (the third highest number of votes apart from the majors) yet not gain a single seat and lose its leader, when the separatist Scots registered fewer votes and gained 56 seats? I think it’s called first-past-the-post voting... you know, that system that many Aussies are calling for.

I’ve never seen anything like it! It was a veritable shishkebab. Party leaders Miliband, Clegg and Farage skewered with Govt Ministers burnt to a crisp and cannibalised by their Coalition partners, including the deputy PM!

How did “one of the closest elections in history” turn into a 98 seat landslide majority for Cameron, another independence vote for the Scots and likely UK freedom from Brussels? Incredible!

[AWOL yesterday preparing a few surprises for my mad Mozzie mates. Was it Kipling who said you should, “keep your head when all about you are losing theirs”?]



Comments

Spike Milligan said "If you can keep your head when everyone around you is losing theirs, you'll be the tallest person in the room." That's 1st past the post - if there are enough Monty Python Parties running, someone can be elected on 10% of the vote, meaning the one elected was not wanted by 90%. Oh yeah, great system.

Hopefully those who are pushing for “first past the post” voting here will rethink their position. Hare Clark is the most democratic system, but it has a tendency to put lunatics in a balance of power situation. It may have its faults, but the best system is to have an elected government where the majority have not voted against it, and that means preferential voting.

Dear G20

Thanks for your email and comments. There are no plans to privatise the ABC.

Internal ABC programming and editorial decisions are the responsibility of the ABC Board and Executive. One of the ABC’s statutory obligations is to be accurate and impartial in its news and current affairs programs according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

Of course taking on this responsibility does not mean that board members should be unilaterally providing free editorial advice, let alone direction, to individual journalists at the ABC. A board of directors acts collectively and so the responsibility set out in the Act must be discharged collectively. The suggestions I foreshadowed in my speech in November 2014 are designed to strengthen the corporate governance of the ABC and better enable the Board to fulfill its duties under the ABC Act.

Ensuring that news and current affairs are accurate and impartial is a core duty of the board as is the duty to ensure the ABC is run efficiently. Having the person who is actually in charge of news and current affairs reporting to the Board would be of equal assistance.

While the ABC has editorial independence, it is accountable to the Parliament through a Charter and appearances before Parliamentary Committees. Unlike the former government, the Coalition will not seek to assert control over the media to the extent the previous government did with its perverse attempt at media reform.

If you wish to raise your concerns directly with the ABC, and I encourage you to do so, you can lodge a complaint at http://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/lodge-a-complaint/. This will ensure that the ABC is directly aware of your concerns and has an opportunity to respond to you. If you are not satisfied with the ABC’s response, you may refer the matter to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) for investigation. Information about making a complaint to the ACMA can be found on the ACMA’s website: http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Take-action/Complaints/Broadcast-complaints/complaints-about-the-abc-or-sbs-1

Regards,


Malcolm

At the last election 2013 the coalition won 90, ALP 55, other 5. If we had first past the post it would have been Coalition 105, ALP 43, other 2. The Coalition did not come second in any seat they won in 2013. Labor won 13 seats were they were second. Palmer, Katter and ind Indi came second in the seats they won. In these 15 seats the Coalition was first past the post.

Never a truer word spoken and that goes for our govt run unis in Aus as well.

IslamoNazi propaganda.

Steven Spielberg and Natalie Portman on Anti-Setimitism…Lovely! (Part I)
.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on May 10, 2015
.
In order for Steven Spielberg to balance his Zionist equation, he has to exclude the actual facts and other interesting phenomena, such as the concentration camp in Gaza.
.
…by Jonas E. Alexis
.
The Zionist regime has really gone mad over the past few weeks and months. Certainly the movement has received a low blow precisely because several of its representatives have been none other than sluts, whores, liars, hoaxers, and even deceivers.
.
For months, the regime has been moaning and lamenting that “anti-Semitism” is on the rise and that it has nothing to do with Jewish behavior,[1] a risible thesis which we have refuted over and over. Here is how Steven Spielberg put the issue last January:
.
“If you are a Jew today, in fact if you are any person who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom in free expression, you know that like many other groups, we are once again facing the perennial demons of intolerance.”[2]
.
In his presentation, Spielberg is basically regurgitating two things: 1) “Anti-Semitism” is on the rise and 2) it has nothing to do with Jewish behavior. As Daniel Jonah Goldhagen would have put it, this form of “anti-Semitism” is the Devil that never dies.[3] On the contrary, Spielberg argues, people do not like Jews because they do not like “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression.”
.
Although this thesis has been propounded ad nauseam in much of the Western World, most specifically in the Holocaust establishment, it has no moral and intellectual basis whatsoever. If we were to use that thesis as an experiment in a social study, that would one of the first theses to be considered—and it would be one of the first to be rejected, because it is so inadequate and ultimately worthless. If Spielberg thinks it is not, then he has to put his thinking cap on for a while and explain the following phenomena.
.
Can Spielberg really explain to us why David Irving has been in jail numerous times for questioning key aspects of the “Holocaust”? Can he tell us why Norman Finkelstein was fired from DePaul University?
.
Can Spielberg pick up the phone and call Denis Rancourt—a stellar physicist at the University of Ottawa and a scholar who has published more than 100 technical articles in peer reviewed scientific journals—and ask him why he was fired after teaching for more than twenty years? Did that have something to do with what Jewish writer J. J. Goldberg would have called “Jewish Power”[4] at the University of Ottawa? Let us hear from Rancourt himself:
.
“The Israel Lobby has the role of chief-whip for the US military-economic-finance empire; Empire, for short. That is, the Lobby ensures doctrinal discipline among Western, that is, US-aligned politicians, intellectuals, and the media, regarding the Empire’s Middle East policy. I mean ‘intellectual’ in the broad sense of any professional who has influence, and ‘media’ in the broad sense of anyone who communicates to others.
.
“The Empire’s main geopolitical focus presently is the Middle East, where the Empire is dedicated to actively and continuously prevent liberation and coalescence of Arab nations, so as to keep control of the territory and the energy resources. To achieve this, the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel, which is charged with continual war and sabotage against all Middle Eastern entities that would vie for independence from the Empire.
.
“Thus, the Empire, via Israel, is embarked on a vicious and murderous project without an end in the Middle East, and this unsavory project must be sold to the Empire’s home populations, including both managers and ordinary citizens. That is the role of the Israel Lobby; to sell Israel and the continuous and deliberate carnage as acceptable and unavoidable.
.
“That is why the Israel Lobby is actively engaged is creating Islamophobia, in exaggerating anti-Semitism, in constructing Nazi-holocaust remembrance, in suppressing academic freedom, in suppressing freedom of the press, in ‘finding’ and pursuing alleged ‘terrorists,’ in developing anti-speech [or] ‘anti-hate’ laws, in promoting cultural ties with Israel, in attacking Muslim associations, and so on.
.
“As such, the work of the Israel Lobby includes hundreds of ongoing campaigns to intimidate, discipline, fire, and vilify academics who dare to be critical of Israel or of US Middle East policy. The list of shut-out and targeted academics is a long one and includes the well-known cases of Joel Kovel, Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Terri Ginsberg, William Robinson, David F. Noble, Steven Salaita, Iymen Chehade, and many others. The more an academic is threatening to the Lobby, the more aggressively that academic is attacked.
.
“My own case is also an example. I was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada’s capital city. I am an internationally recognized researcher and I taught in both the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Arts. I was publicly critical of the university president’s paid trip to Israel.
.
“I invited Palestinian speakers into my classrooms to talk about Gaza, and geopolitical analysts who were critical of Israel. These moves led to condemnation of me in the Zionist mainstream media, and to discipline, which was overturned.
.
“In 2008, a new university president – Allan Rock – who is a staunch and unconditional supporter of Israel and who had been Canada’s Zionist ambassador to the UN, became immediately motivated to fire me, tenure or not, and irrespective of my popular courses and my large science research funding.
.
“With the help of an entire team using specially-hired union-busting lawyers, after contriving for years including intensive covert surveillance of me using a hired-student spy to monitor my every spoken and written word and my every activity on campus and at other university campuses, the university finally settled on the false pretext for dismissal of alleging that I had improperly assigned high grades to all 23 students in an advanced physics course.
.
“They needed a ‘clean’ pretext that they hoped would be supported by public opinion and that would not bring out all of their dirt. When public opinion and some mainstream media sided with me instead, a high-profile Zionist columnist at the New York Times suddenly wrote not-one but two articles to discredit me, and was invited to Canada to falsely defame me, regarding my teaching, on a trend-setting Canadian TV talk show whose producers are Zionists.”
.
This “high-profile Zionist columnist at the New York Times” was none other than Stanley Fish,[5] a professor of English literature at the University of Illinois. Fish has been a thought police since time immemorial. E. Michael Jones for example took one of Fish’s courses as a graduate student during the 1970s and things did not go well at all.
.
Let us just say in passing that Fish pretends to promote free speech in his writings and public appearances, but you are not allowed to criticize or demolish Fish’s arguments in his classroom, particularly when you logically show that those arguments are firmly planted in mid-air. Jones writes:
.
“After one class in which I tried to explain the similarities between Fish’s theories and those critics we had just demolished, a change came over the classroom. Not only wasn’t I brilliant anymore [Fish previously told Jones that he was ‘brilliant’], but I found that I could not get recognized to ask questions anymore. The discussion, what little there was, had to get along without me. One day after holding my arm up in the air for what seemed like hours, Fish finally called me, but prefaced his remarks by saying, ‘Mr. Jones, you’ve wasted enough of this class’ time; now, what is it?’
.
“I found myself remembering this incident while reading an article in a recent issue of Newsweek on ‘Thought Police on Campus.’ there right in the middle of the discussion was a picture of a now-wizened Stanley Fish telling the Newsweek reporter that ‘Disagreement can be fun.’ That’s not the way I remember it. It was not fun to disagree with Stanley Fish, at least not when you were a student in his class.”[6]
.
In any event, will Spielberg protect Rancourt’s free speech? Will he help Rancourt get his job back? Rancourt told me a few months ago that he was “struggling with this essential funding campaign for my appeal in the defamation case that was funded by the university.”[7] Will Steven Spielberg, whose “personal net worth is estimated to be $3.6 billion,” send a check to Rancourt and help his cause?
.
To pursue this study further, can Spielberg explain to us why Ernst Zundel’s house was burned down by members of the Dreadful Few? Can he come up with a rational explanation as to why Nicholas Kollerstrom, a noted historian of science who has written several entries for the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, was fired from the University College of London?
.
If Spielberg did not know any of those facts, then he needs to take a long vacation from Hollywood and visit his local library, talk to people who have been stigmatized by organized Jewry (most specifically Jewish people like Norman Finkelstein), and provide a reasoned response to some of their concerns. That would help him a great deal and would almost certainly move the debate forward.
.
Spielberg is confronted with multiple difficulties here. In order for him to balance his Zionist equation, he has to exclude the actual facts and other interesting phenomena, such as the concentration camp in Gaza.[8] He has to specifically dismiss the fact that “Bedouin families east of Jerusalem face forced evacuation.”[9] The Associated Press has recently declared,
.
“It was a large house with three floors and freshly painted pale blue shutters that had just been built for a family of 17. But within a few hours of work by a pair of Israeli bulldozers, all that was left was a mountain of rubble and twisted metal.”
.
In addition, Spielberg has to ignore the testimonies of at least 60 Israeli soldiers who said that they were indiscriminately killing civilians.[10] Listen to an Israeli official after Hamas won the Palestinian elections: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
.
Spielberg has to deny that U.S. troops, which are under the auspices of the Neo-Bolsheviks, have and are still “operating openly in Ukraine.”[11] He has to deny that the Ukraine crisis, as John J. Mearsheimer of the University Chicago put it last year, is “the West’s fault.”[12] (From our perspective, it is the Neo-Bolsheviks’ fault.)
.
Spielberg has to deny that at least 25,962 innocent civilians have lost their lives from 2008 to 2013 in the Middle East.[13] Spielberg has to deny that “an estimated 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults took place in the military in 2012” alone.[14]
.
As it turns out, people like Spielberg have indirectly ruined the Zionist project. We have already argued that Mila Kunis, Pamela Geller, and Michael Douglas did not help the Zionist cause by pulling out the anti-Semitism card out of the Zionist hat. Now Natalie Portman’s turn.
.
“Israeli-born actress Natalie Portman says she feels nervous as a Jew living in France, where she moved last year, two months before the Charlie Hebdo attacks.”
.
Once again, has that woman visited Gaza? Why doesn’t she take a vacation there and see what it looks like?[15] Doesn’t Portman have a psychology degree from Harvard? Doesn’t she have to look at the actual evidence before she can make a conclusion?
.
Oh, my apologies. Portman rapped that she cheated on every test while at Harvard. (Whether she is being serious I cannot tell. But there could be some truth in this. She was still working as an actress while studying psychology. She was also Alan Dershowitz’s research assistant, the guy who got caught plagiarizing.[16]):
.
As we saw in a previous article, as an actress Portman could not give credit where credit was due. In short, her fruit does not allow us to take her seriously at all.
.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/10/steven-spielberg-and-natalie-portman-on-anti-setimitism-lovely-part-i/

Judaism's Strange Gods ~ Michael A. Hoffman
.
Published on Nov 13, 2014
.
Christians must understand that the religion of Judaism is anti-Biblical. The true religion of the God of Israel is Christianity not Judaism. Judaism is simply a perversion of God’s original revelation to the Hebrew nation–it is the very religion of nullification of the Old Testament.
.

The Talmud teaches that a Jew may *kill, **steal, and ***lie to non-Jews with impunity -yet all of these actions are in violation of the 6th, 7th, and 9th commandments of Moses. Here is but one example of the Oral Law making the Word of God “of none effect.” [*Tractates Sanhedrin 58b; **Baba Mezia 24a; **Sanhedrin 57a; ***Baba Kama 113a]
.

The main tenet of Judaism is Jewish self-worship. Judaism has as its “god,” not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the worship of the Jewish people. For the Talmud teaches that the Gentile is a lower form of humanity. They all believe that they have this special-ness about them, believing the myth that they, not the Christians, are the “chosen people.”
Michael A. Hoffman.......
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po_cSMoCZ6w

What was the blogs editor doing in the meantime?

Methadone?

Rinaldo, what you just posted doesn't support your claim. Times was unmoderated and unmonitored. That's how the Nazi's posted the story with the stolen identity. You know Rinaldo, your whole life is imagined. I don't think there is a single real fact you believe In. You are delusional.

David M 3 hours ago
Rinaldo, Times of Israel published it because their blog was unmoderated, no one was monitoring what the Nazis were doing with someone's stolen identity.
.
The Times of Israel Staff
.
Ops & Blogs Editor Miriam Herschlag was a reporter and anchor for Israel’s English radio and TV news. She spent two years in Hong Kong, where she was founding editor of a business Webzine, and she later ran the training and documentation departments at Given Imaging Inc. She’s now happily back in news.
.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/about/
.
So The Times of Israel approved the publication of the blog article until all hell broke loose.

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/did-white-nationalists-impersonate-oz-lawyer-josh-bornstein-at-the-times-of-israel/

“We must fill our psychiatric hospitals with anti-semitic crazy people and our prisons with anti-semitic criminals. We must hunt anti-semitics and all the way to the limits of the law and after that destroy them. We must humiliate our anti-semitics and torture them until they become our fellow travelers…” (Rabbi Leon Spitz, American Hebrew, 01.03.1946)
.

Rinaldo, Times of Israel published it because their blog was unmoderated, no one was monitoring what the Nazis were doing with someone's stolen identity.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-slams-shas-spiritual-leader-for-saying-non-jews-were-born-to-serve-jews-1.320235
.
ADL slams Shas spiritual leader for saying non-Jews 'were born to serve Jews'
.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef says in Saturday sermon that 'Goyim have no place in the world - only to serve the People of Israel'; ADL chief calls Yosef's words 'hateful' and 'divisive'.
.
By Natasha Mozgovaya and Haaretz Service | Oct. 20, 2010 | 12:43 PM | 3
.

The Anti-Defamation League on Tuesday condemned comments about non-Jews made this past weekend by Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.
.
In a sermon given on Saturday on laws concerning what non-Jews are permitted to do on Shabbat, Yosef said: "Goyim [non-Jews] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel."
.
"Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat."
.
According to Yosef, death has "no dominion" over non-Jews in Israel.
.
"With gentiles, it will be like any person - they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”
.
On Tuesday, the ADL said that Yosef's comments contributed "to an atmosphere of hatred and a global trend of intolerance."
.
"It is disturbing to see any religious leader, and particularly Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, use their podium to preach such hateful and divisive ideas," ADL chief Abraham H. Foxman said.
.
"In a world where bigotry and prejudice are prevalent, it is especially important for religious leaders to use their influence to teach respect and acceptance," he continued.

"Times of Israel staff had no reason to suspect this was a hoax, also given that half a dozen posts were published on this blog in subsequent days, all on topic and perfectly reasonable. As we found out Thursday, these posts were taken from Bornstein’s articles elsewhere on the internet."
.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hoax-blogger-posts-vile-post/#
.
Never the less the Times of Israel found it fit to print

David M 15 hours ago
.
Disraeli, Rinaldo can't give you a link because the article was posted by neo-Nazis who stole Josh Bornstein's identity. Rinaldo and his mates don't seem to be capable of posting anything that is true.... http://www.afr.com/news/how-lawyer-josh-bornsteins-stolen-identity-was-used-to-spread-race-hate-20150506-ggv46p
.
The missing link to THE TIMES OF ISRAEL that you have been waiting for -
.
https://archive.is/bUarE#selection-1135.1186-1143.1595

Hadenuff 6 hours ago
I've already posted information disproving it you ignorant oaf. There was even a court trial proving it was false.
----
Hadenuff 58 minutes ago
.
Hoax
.

Despite being shown to be a hoax as far back as 1921,[1] it is still distributed and believed by people who swallow whatever fiction fits with their racist views.[2] In addition to its exposure as a forgery (by journalist Robert Graves of The Times) in 1921, a pamphlet containing three essays by Lucien Wolf called The Myth of the Jewish Menace in World Affairs debunking the Protocols was released in the same year.[3] A Swiss judge ruled the pamphlet to be a forgery in a 1935 decision in a case known as the Berne trial.[4]
.
------------
Hadenuff reads fabrications -
.
Protocols Decision Washed Out
.
Press and Radio Silent on Appeal Finding
.
Great publicity was given throughout the world in 1935 to a decision in the Swiss Courts that the documents known as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" were a forgery; that the judge had described the contents as "ridiculous nonsense"; and that the Protocols had been condemned as an offence against public morals.
.

Even in remote New Zealand numerous newspapers at that time published long articles on what they termed an "Historic Forgery"; and addresses were similarly given over the radio system proclaiming loudly that the Protocols had been shown to be baseless.
.


We are now at the end of February, 1938, but the writer can recall nothing in the daily papers, and he has heard nothing over the radio system, telling him that the Protocols verdict given on May 14, 1935, was reversed by the Berne Court of Appeal on November 1 last.
.

When the decision went one way it was news fit for all the world to hear: a subject for special articles and radio broadcasts. When it went the other way it ceased to be news at all........."
.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/examiner.htm

No system is perfect but our preferential system is not that bad. We need a change in the way we elect Senators but compared to the UK our system works better. UKIP got 3,881,129 votes and won 1 seat. The Scottish national got 1,454,436 votes but won 56 seats. UKIP and Greens got 5,038,742 votes between them but won 2 seats, five minor parties got 756,926 votes but won 20 seats.