MEDIA BIGOTRY ON DISPLAY

Throughout history “the people”, their moods, prejudices and bigotries, have been manipulated by the reigning experts in propaganda.

In the European context, the church was long the perpetrator of ‘mind control’ and of course we recognise dictatorships, past and present, as consummate manipulators of information in support of their various agenda.

These agenda invariably have a few things in common – some perceived Utopian objective, fear and simple expediency. Regardless of the complexity of social problems, the propagandist aims to subdue and marshal the people to his cause by identifying scapegoats.

For the church it was Satan, demons and witchery. For the Nazis it was the Jews and for sundry contemporary propagandists it is America.

Though a little more benign by comparison with these extreme cases, propagandists are at work in Australia too and their objectives are familiar – the identification and demonization of scapegoats, the persecution of which invariably serves what some see as altruistic objectives.

They know how to manipulate the population which, for the most part, willingly absorbs what it is fed by those who appear to occupy positions of celebrity, prestige and influence and their manipulators have the tools and an almost limitless budget with which to pursue their social engineering objectives.

I am talking about the Australian media.

As many readers will be aware, I have often highlighted the media’s manipulative bigotry but rarely has it offered-up an example I can share, that is as clear-cut as the following.

As everyone must surely be aware, the media considers it an offence to criticize Islam in any way shape or form. Only one attitude is permissible – “Islam is the religion of peace”. 

Any suggestion to the contrary results in one’s opinion being labelled ‘racist’ (despite the fact Islam is not a race), or ‘Islamophobic’ and anyone daring to express alternative views will be lampooned, either by the media itself, or by others convened by the media in a forum for the purpose of lampooning the ‘Islamophobic’.

For the past week or so, however, a visitor to our shores has appeared on just about every conceivable current affairs and infotainment program that can muster a panel of ‘journalists’, pseudo-experts and social commentators of the type that will not truck with criticism of Islam in any form.

The visitor’s name is Tony Ortega, a US journalist who wrote (among other titles) a book called “The Unbreakable Miss Lovely”, which charts a woman’s horror journey with the church of Scientology. 

Now I have no views, whatsoever, about Scientology or Islam either for that matter, but as an example of Australian media hypocrisy the media’s approach to interviewing one of Scientology's most ardent detractors is without compare.

When interviewed, Ortega speaks of all manner of abuses, connivances, skulduggery and hypocrisies as the interviewer, or in some cases a panel of interviewers, nod approvingly and asked questions aimed at teasing out every last negative Scientology anecdote.

Together they are in accord - the entire church is a travesty we certainly don’t need in Australia and they speak openly about the evils of Scientology’s oppression, manipulation, it’s questionable and downright bizarre doctrine and activities.

The message is clear. You cannot trust these people. They are strange, their beliefs are outrageous in the extreme and we must keep an eye on them for fear they may become too established on our patch. 

The language used does not distinguish between ordinary Scientologists and ‘extremists’ and there is no talk of ‘radicalised’ as apposed to moderate Scientologists, oh no. 

Scientology is Scientology and we need to shun “those people” as a job-lot!

Now I am no expert on Scientology, but so far as I’m aware, they believe we are the walking vessels for an ancient alien master race. 

These creatures live within and influence us...you know, a bit like the Holy Spirit and/or Satan, but of course not real. 

I believe their religion also involves mystical creatures who live beyond our planet, a bit like angels and, well, god, but again not real.

They have a prophet, they have a set code of conduct and rules to live by and they insist the members of their church tithe, a bit like the Christian church, but of course this one is built on a fantasy involving imaginary friends who’ll look after them if they love one-another and strive for ascension.

Now there would appear to be no doubt that as religions go, Scientologists get up to some pretty naughty stuff, including (it is said) corruption, fraud, intimidation, hacking, tapping and so on. 

What Scientologists don’t do, as far as I know, is explode...not even the radicalized ones. 

They don’t hack people’s heads off for apostasy, homosexuality or adultery and no part of their doctrine works as a guide for who may be killed under what noble and redeeming circumstances.

This is not just another crazy Christian cult. Scientology is not Christian, but rather an altogether distinct religion and apparently one that is completely undeserving of any consideration of the possibility that “most of them are really nice, honourable, peace-loving people just like you and me”.

Scientology is just plain weird...even worse, it’s American!!

The message receiving very strong media sponsorship is anything but opaque. Scientology is evil, its practitioners deluded, we must keep an eye on them treating them always with suspicion. 

We must send a clear message, ‪#‎Iwillnotridewithanyofyou‬

Now if I’ve not made my point about the bigoted, manipulative nature of the Australian media I doubt I ever will. 

These are the same people who drive public opinion about hunting and the ownership or arms, every last one of whom the media portrays as evil and irresponsible, every day of the week in some form or other.

Perhaps if we all got together to form the "Moderate Personhood of Non-Radicalised, Islamic Hunters of Australia" we might look forward to a little objectivity from the press?

Finally, as if to punctuate the ascertain that the media never allows facts to get in the way of an agenda, since August (2015), Aunty ABC has been forced to issue not one, not two, but three retractions on false/misleading statements relating to firearms:

Retraction 1 
Retraction 2
Retraction 3...and counting

Anyway, I'll get outaya way now...

Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/media-bigotry-on-display.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

THE COLOUR OF COWARDICE

When it comes to accusing governments of being environmental policy laughingstocks on the world stage the Australian Greens are always first out of the chute.

Regardless of any concessions made, the Greens want more, they want it faster and regardless of the short-term consequences they are absolutely committed to making tough decisions today, that will ensure the future for generations to come. 

At least that’s the line they peddle.

In truth, the Greens are a party of rebellious teens who crave popularity above all else. Oh they’ll back the hard decisions alright, but if the hard decisions are also unpopular the Greens’ silence is positively deafening.

Take for example, the Australian government’s recent and quite gutsy (if disappointingly minimalist) decision to address the nation's feral cat scourge.

In terms of their impact on rare and endangered native species, feral cats are public enemy number one.

While statistics are difficult to determine when it comes to discreet killers such as cats, it is generally agreed that the Australian continent and surrounding islands play host to 20+million feral cats. 

Between them they dispatch (eat or kill for sport) 75 million native animals every night—more than 20 billion mammals, reptiles, birds and even some vital insects species every year.

There are at least three areas in which the expert authorities are in accord:

1. As a ravenous introduced predator cats have no equal,

2. As a ravenous introduced predator cats have no place in the Australian environment, and

3. The Australian environment would benefit incomprehensibly from the absence of cats.

Here’s the interesting thing – the Greens agree with all 3 points. 

In fact the Australian Greens’ policy position on introduced species is that they should all be ‘removed’ from the environment, a process that would require the ‘removal’ of literally trillions of individuals.

In fact, because they generally oppose all forms of animal exploitation, any future Greens’ Utopia would be achieved only with the ‘removal’ of all non-indigenous species, including cows, sheep, chickens etc., in short, all species currently farmed for food or fibre.

Now I confess, the term ‘removed’ is a little indulgence of my own. The Greens prefer the term ‘control’ and they have listed, as a matter of policy, a number of approved ‘control’ measures. 

These include shooting by “professional shooters”, the deployment of humane poisoned baits, biological controls (e.g. the calicivirus also known as Rabbit haemorrhagic disease) and of course humane trapping, which naturally requires a little follow-up ‘control’ after the fact.

In short, the Greens policy of pest and feral animal ‘control’ consists of various means of killing animals in their hundreds of millions. This is not something the Greens will deny if pressed for confirmation, but it is certainly something they will not volunteer publically.

While the Greens oppose hunting, for instance, they do not oppose the killing aspect of the activity per se, oh no. What they oppose is the notion of people deriving satisfaction from hunting, or what the Greens refer to as the “thrill of killing”.

For instance, at present deer (family Cervidae) enjoy a certain level of protection from outright extermination due to their status as game animals. In essence, this means they may be hunted by licensed hunters and perhaps only during certain seasons, but not baited, trapped or exposed to the Cervidae equivalent of Ebola.

The Greens are not at all happy about this situation, which they are striving to end because they feel the preservation of deer as a public resource is hampering efforts to exterminate every last one of them.

But I began this article with the assertion that the Greens are nothing more than a party of petulant attention-seeking teens who crave popularity above all else and I confess I have digressed, if only in explanation. 

Here is my point...

Given their espoused commitment to making the hard decisions today in order that we might reap the benefits of a brighter tomorrow; given their avowed concern for our international image; given moreover that among the major political options the Greens alone have a Dalek-like commitment to extermination, why have they been so darn quiet lately?

I refer of course to the recent international furore fanned by the likes of Brigitte Bardot, Morrissey and PETA. They have each, in their turn and together, criticised Australia’s decision to act in a fairly decisive manner in relation to its feral cat scourge, referring to the plan as cruel, inhumane, ineffective, shameful, unethical and predictably etc., etc... 

Morrissey, who once advised he goes by a single moniker because all history's great men were known by but a single name - Beethoven, Einstein, Shakespeare (Plllease!) - even went so far as to call Australia a nation governed by, basically, sheep farmers.     

Regardless of the fact the Greens are not delivering the proposed feral cat 'control' program it is very much Greens’ policy to ‘control’ feral cats and by killing them to boot.

It would seem reasonable then to assume that being keenly concerned for Australia’s international image and as the political alternative with conservation at the very forefront of its raison d’etre, the Greens might want to defend Australia just a wee bit by telling Bardot, Morrissey, PETA and all the other bleating hearts to pull their heads in?

Instead there has been silence, and why? 

Because the Greens’ very existence depends on people believing, falsely, that a vote for the Greens means immortality for all the cute and defenceless kitties. 

In short, to stand up and be counted with Australians willing to make hard decisions in the national interest would be political suicide for the Greens and they value their popularity even more than their Utopian ideals.

The term “un-Australian” is bandied about a lot these days, but for me it has always proved hard to define succinctly. Until that joysome day arrives, I suppose I have little choice but to resort  to symbolism...  

Greens Senator and Environment spokesperson Larissa Waters

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/the-colour-of-cowardice.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

BIGOTRY IN BLACK AND WHITE

Bigot, noun – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. 

Australian journalists have long embraced the tools of the bigot in their emotionally manipulative war on responsible, ethical hunters.

The bigot’s agenda can be promulgated overtly or covertly, both by what is said and by what is left unsaid. 

A glaring example of this can be found in the media’s absolute refusal to distinguish between those few who may engage in illegal activities and the vast majority who hunt legally and responsibly.

Poacher, noun – a person who illegally hunts game, fish, etc, out of season or on someone else's property. 

The term ‘poacher’, adopted by countries worldwide, is both accurate and specific to the vast majority of illegal activity referred to religiously by the Australian media as the work of “illegal hunters”.

Thus, given the media rarely reports a positive hunting story, the only time hunting enters the public consciousness is when associated with illegality of some kind.

The media has a variety of methods of inserting controversy into an otherwise pedestrian story. After all, one measure of journalistic excellence is the number of subsequent stories the original can generate. 

Typically this will involve the use of emotive, often bizarrely tangential headlines and imagery.

For instance, a story about a hunter’s pride in harvesting free-range organic venison for his family while also assisting efforts to control the feral scourge, may appear beneath the headline, “Proud to be a killer”.

Leading into said article on deer hunting, one is likely to find the image of a politician, a dentist or perhaps an ex-cricketer, gun in hand, smiling over his trophy elephant.

Unless the Australian media truly believes deer spin cocoons from which they eventually emerge equipped with enormous ears and tusks, the reason for the elephant's  introduction into a deer hunting story can serve only one purpose - to elicit an emotional response from the reader. 

Any claim by the hunter that his deer hunting activities are responsible, will be repudiated by the representative of an organisation with well established policies in opposition to hunting, whose views the journalist has sought for the purpose of pandering to ignorance and fostering the perfect climate for an emotive public backlash. This they call 'balance'.

Whether necessary or not, words such as ‘killing’, ‘cruel’ and ‘dangerous’ will appear repeatedly throughout the article and because bemoaning all things American is also a favourite pastime of the Australian media, fears for a developing “American-style (insert irrational phobia here) culture” will be expressed courtesy of a quote from the Greens.

Should a hunter suggest he hunts to preserve an age-old cultural pursuit and associated skills passed down to him through the generations, the claim will be lampooned and his culture subjected to the scrutiny and judgement of the court of public opinion, also know as the online comments section, which invariably appears beneath such articles.

Here we will find ignorance, hatred and bigotry given a public platform, which the media, having skilfully whipped-up the frenzy in the first instance, can claim is simply a reflection of genuine public concern.

Respondents (at least those published) generally restrict their ‘analysis’ of hunting to puerile accusations, the top four of these being:

• “Face it, you kill because you like killing!”

• “You have no empathy!”

• “Civilisation has evolved beyond killing”, and of course the perennial

• “I hope your (insert weapon of choice) jams and the (insert animal of choice) tears your throat out so you die in agony you lowlife scumbag”.

All this ignorance and hatred is a fait accompli whenever the Australian media publishes a story about subsistence or conservation hunting. But there is one notable exception, the circumstances of which expose, in black and white, the culture of bigotry and racism manifest in the Australian public and the media alike.

On October 14th, 2015 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Science Network journalist Geoff Vivian, entitled Desert cat hunters cut wildlife protection costs.

Nolia Ward with a feral cat that she has just hunted.
Credit: Kate Crossing, Central Desert Native Title Services

In his article Vivian goes to great pains to credit desert aborigines with helping to protect native species by hunting feral cats which, he informs his readers, the Pintupi people of the Gibson Desert have included in their diet for upwards of 100 years.

The article points out that this hunting takes place on protected land, similar in nature to a national park and the economic benefits of this free conservation hunting activity are enthusiastically extolled.

As a result, the conservation hunting activities of the Pintupi people are credited as a significant factor in the thriving populations of native species ostensibly suffering elsewhere for the lack of conservation hunting activity.

The article even includes a picture (above) of a Pintupi woman smiling for the camera with a dead cat draped across her shoulders, captioned “Nolia Ward with a feral cat that she has just hunted”.

But of most interest perhaps, is what the article does not include.

The words ‘dead’ and ‘killed’ have been omitted throughout in favour of the words ‘hunt’ and ‘hunted’.

There is no speculation as to the cultural validity of hunting cats for both food and conservation purposes, nor any suggestion that doing so might be inefficient, unjustifiably cruel, sadistic or otherwise unethical.

No emotive quotes questioning the effectiveness of conservation hunting have been included from the anti-hunting lobby for ‘balance’, despite the fact that unlike other Australian hunters, Aboriginal people are at liberty to hunt native species.

In what can only be termed a fundamental break with reporting tradition, this conservation hunting article is not headed by the obligatory picture of a high-profile trophy hunter and his elephant, and the caption accompanying the image of the successful cat hunter infers nothing about the joys of "killing for sport".

In fact there is nothing to indicate the quarry is dead, save for the fact that if Ms Ward was posing with a live feral cat draped casually across her shoulders its vigour would be immediately evident by the rivulets of blood coursing down the hunter’s clothing, all of it hers!

Finally, no comments section has been provided below the article, in which the usual hateful and disparaging remarks about Ms Ward's sadistic cruelty, lack of empathy and general suitability as a mother might be voiced as ‘feedback’.

In fact the media might be criticised for its uncharacteristic and quite callous disregard for the need of Ricky Gervais, Brigitte Bardot, Morressey and their collective minions to vent their communal spleen at Ms Ward.

Overall the article makes a clear statement. Hunting can be  a legitimate, beneficial and even praiseworthy pursuit, provided the hunters’ race and culture are such that we deem them valid.

This principle applies only to Aboriginal Australians for whom it appears our expectations are generally quite low in 'evolutionary' terms. Thus we are willing to indulge the hunters’ activities much as a patient parent might endure the behaviour of an incorrigible child in the hope it's just a phase he'll someday grow out of.

For everyone else the message is clear, “We expect you to have evolved beyond such primitive activities, which we simply will not tolerate in white folks!” 

Who are the final arbiters of cultural validity in Australia? Is it really the media as it would so often appear, or is it those representatives of the public given to statements of intolerance and hatred in response to the various self-serving contrivances of journalistic bias? 

In closing it behooves me to state, for the record, that I do not accuse Geoff Vivian of bigotry, bias or racist paternalism. For all I know he may simply be a journalist of exemplary calibre. But his is not the only article we've read over the years celebrating the culture and extolling the virtues of Aboriginal hunting activities.

As a person of Aboriginal heritage I guess I could simply embrace the indemnity offered me by the Australian community and quietly go about my business. But to adopt the "I'm alright Jack" philosophy would mean turning a blind eye to the very obvious attacks on European culture I witness almost daily and I will not be forced to abandon one culture for the relative safety of another. 

That was, after all, the premise upon which the assimilation practices of the last century were based.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

Follow the blog on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/bigotry-in-black-and-white.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.