It Must Be True What They're Saying About World Government, I Read It In The Australian

By Darryl Mason

Janet Albretchsen ramps up the booga-booga, and supplies a list of talking points and questions for the Opposition to bombard the Rudd government with in Question Time, which they will surely do, as soon as today :



According to this ABC board member, the Copenhagaen Climate Change Treaty is a secret World Government plot.

How long I've waited for the day that Parliament House erupts with questions and yelling about "World Government!" Nexus Magazine circa-1987 was right, after all. At least on Planet Janet.

Hopefully, Tony Abbott will be allowed to ask KevinRuddPM when Australians will be implanted with New World Order/World Government! RFID chips (secreted inside mandatory depopulating swine flu vaccinations of course), to keep them under control as the wealth of the few is handed over to placate the poverty of the many.

Then again, Janet and her fellow pro-war nutters in the Murdoch media also believed that bombing the absolute fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan would bring peace to the Middle East.

Janet Albretchsen's source for her UN/NWO/World Government! claims come through Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Benchley, who likes to refer to climate scientists as "bedwetters" and the American president as "Osamabamarama".

.

One 'Janet' Unit Of Time Measurement = About Four Years

By Darryl Mason

Time moves at a curiously different speed on Planet Janet :

Almost the moment David Hicks was being measured up for his orange Gitmo jump suit, Get Up was up and running a very vocal campaign, castigating the evil Yanks for incarcerating one of our own and demanding that his rights be protected.

Almost the moment....Right.

David Hicks was captured in Afghanistan and sold to the US military and transported to Guantanamo Bay in December, 2001.

GetUp! was founded in August, 2005.

Janet Albrechtsen isn't even trying anymore.

How much does News Limited CEO John Hartigan expect us to pay read her trundling Talking Points For Desperate Howard-Era Liberals online next year?

Janet's so desperate for anything of substance she even resorts to quoting The Greens' Bob Brown, however reluctantly, with approval. W0w.

Tony Abbott is seriously being discussed as the next leader of the Liberal Party and Janet Albrechtsen thinks Bob Brown is right. These are politically hallucinogenic days.

The short version of this week's transmission from Planet Janet is that Evil Pagan Lefties should be out protesting against the Chinese regime, like they do a lot already about Tibet and human rights, but they should have shut the fuck up when it came to the Bush regime, and though she usually thinks protests are useless at effective change they should now all shout "You Bastards!" at the Chinese regime and protest and write letters, because....and this may shock you....the Chinese Communist regime plucks people, including foreign nationals, off the streets and detains them and interrogates them and doesn't give them access to lawyers and fucks around with the detainee's home government diplomats when they try to get access to the prisoners.

By imprisoning Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu for a week, so far, without charge, the Chinese communist regime is acting like, I don't know....a bunch of bloody communists or something.

Or like Americans.

Obviously, we all expect better behaviour from communist regimes. Regardless of how much coal they buy from us.

I'm not quite sure Janet Albrechtsen is aware that she has successfully compared the violation of the human rights of Stern Hu by the Chinese Communist Regime to the violation of the human rights of David Hicks by the United States under the Bush Warparty Regime. But good on her for finally recognising the truth. All these years later.

Just don't expect to see Janet Albrechtsen at the barricades outside the Chinese embassy.

As she so often told us during the Bush War For (Our) God Years, as so many opinionists and editors of the Murdoch Old Media railed so effervescently back then, protests don't work. Protests are pointless, usually misguided, often offensive and utterly meaningless.

Unless the protests are against the actions of a communist regime who doesn't recognise the democratic right to protest, of course, then they can really make a difference.

Something like that.

You try and make sense of it.

Planet Janet Classic : Obama Wins Presidency, This Confirms America Is "A Racist Nation"

Planet Janet Classic : Rudd Wins Election, "Conservatism Has Triumphed!"

Planet Janet Classic : Before She Wrote Her 'Howard Must Go' 2007 Column, She Rang Howard's Office To Tip Him Off

Why Do They Hate America So Much?

Step forward the new screechers of foam-flecked anti-Americanism :

While it may seem uncharitable to be critical of a new US President on his Inauguration Day...

What the hell, it's never too early to kick off The Great Obama HateFest 2009-2017.

Remember, when Australians were critical of George W. Bush, and refused to believe his deadly lies, and wrote letters and protested about a war they didn't want to be a part of? They were not only Bush Haters, they were damned terrorist-loving anti-Americans as well. Obviously.

Bush Derangement Syndrome, we learned, was just a cover for an all round loathing of Americans and American culture.

If you thought the American president was a dill, or a dangerous fool, you instantly hated all Americans.

So obviously those same rules and labels must also apply now, particularly for those, like Piers Akerman, who can't even wait until Obama sits down at his desk in the West Wing for the first time before he goes after the new American president.

Here another Murdoch journo using sneering mockery to hide his Obama Hating Anti-American extremism :

"...(the inauguration commences) with the ceremonial healing of blind crippled lepers and ending with Obama’s transformation into a single beam of pure light. Let the miracles begin!"

Most of the anti-American extremism in the Australian media today is coming from Murdoch writers like Piers Akerman and Janet Albretchsen and Tim Blair, and Andrew Bolt will of course soon join them, but this core group of anti-American Obama Haters should not forget the warnings from their own boss, Rupert Murdoch, about such easy and tempting hatred :

"The Australian people must not allow their perfectly legitimate doubts about one policy or one American administration to cloud their long-term judgment...Australians must resist and reject the facile, reflexive, unthinking anti-Americanism..."

And they should not forget the warnings of John Howard :

"While anti-Americanism seemingly finds a ready outlet in every age, we should not pretend that it is cost-free. For some, a bit of armchair anti-Americanism may be nothing more than a mild indulgence. But … be careful what you wish for."

The Obama Hating Anti-Americans in the Murdoch media will claim they're only criticising the new American president, and holding him to account, but don't let them fool you : They Hate America.

Obama Wins Presidency : A "Victory For Stupidity"

The New Anti-Americanism : Obama Win Is A "Victory For Stupidity"

By Darryl Mason

It's only been 48 hours, but the rise in Australia of the new anti-Americanism, now that Barack Obama has won the White House, by millions of votes instead of just a few hundred, has been swift, shocking and sickening.

And the worst of this vile new anti-Americanism comes from the Murdoch media.

Tens of millions of Americans voted to end the nation-gutting eight year rule of Republicans in the White House, but Australia's finest conservative, Liberal minds can't stop talking about the colour of Obama's skin. Obama didn't win, they tell us, because he had more popular policies and ideas, he only won because he is black, and "many, many Americans" only voted for him because they were stricken with whitey guilt.

Evil Pagan Lefties hated the Bush administration, that much is clear, but these anti-American extremists in the Murdoch media are claiming the majority of Americans are so dim, so deluded, they only voted for Obama because he is black, like them, or black enough to assuage white man guilt for building a nation off the broken backs of millions of African slaves.

America is now, claims one Murdoch dancing bear, "a racist nation".

Another claims Obama's win is a "victory for stupidity".

Seriously, this is how fucked up Murdoch's ballistic-bile-brethren have become months before Obama takes his seat behind that beautiful old desk in the West Wing. No doubt, their anti-American extremism will grow only more bitter and twisted.

One of the worst of these new anti-American extremists is The Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen. It should come as no great surprise that this anti-American sits on the ABC board.

Here Janet suffers a hilarious but disturbing downward spiral of the brain. She starts by making up headlines for an event that didn't happen :

Had Republican John McCain beaten the odds and been elected the 44th US President today, the sure-fire headline would have been “America is a racist nation”...

Now, I’m sure there are many Americans who did not vote for Obama because he is black. Some may well live in Wasilla. Hockey-mom Palin may well have encouraged them to turn out to vote for McCain. But let me run this by you. If it’s racism when an American refuses to vote for Obama because he is black, surely it is also racism when an American votes for Obama because he is black. And can anyone deny that plenty of Americans did just that when they voted for him?

Yes, they can deny that. They voted for a Democrat who wants to end the Iraq War and provide health care to the poor, for starters.

...let’s not for a second be so deluded – or hypocritical – as to imagine that race was not a reason why many, many Americans voted for him.

That must be it. They successfully fought the irresistable urge to return the Republican Party to power, while more than 90% of Americans say the country was headed in the wrong direction, just because Obama's dad was from Kenya? You're insane!

...in the meantime let me be the first to say...that this election result confirms that the US is still, in part, a racist nation.

Maybe through your hate-blinded, anti-American eyes, Janet, but the rest of us saw millions of grinning young Americans, of all religions and races, dancing in the streets of their hometowns, together, united, and so damn happy.

The Professional Idiot remains obsessed, as usual, with the colour of a man's skin. November 5 :

The Democrats are offering the cool, young black guy promising change - the African American whose mere election will heal the country’s racial wounds. The man whose age, colour and African heritage suggests he’s of a new century, a new order.

A black president. Fantastic. Now can we all get over this colour thing?

Sure. Can you?

No.

November 5 (later) :

America has elected its first black president.

If you are really looking for a race-based vote, how can anyone avoid the black vote in this election?

No. No. No. No.

November 7 :

Some 95 per cent of black voters backed the black guy against McCain...

True, looking black, he didn’t need to say more...

The Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman claims Obama's big win is "a victory for stupidity." :

Without a white woman contesting the party’s nomination, it seems unlikely a black man would have won the party’s vote.

Though Obama’s Republican opponent, war hero and former PoW and US Senator John McCain, has not raised race as an issue, the Democrats have used it to engender a sense of guilt in white Americans who harbour doubts about Obama’s capacity as the leader of the free world. Not to support Obama raises the question of whether that decision has a racist undertone...

Then there was the Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair trying to claim, on ABC's Insiders, that the only reason Barack Obama could pull 100,000 people to a speech was because he had "The Rolling Stones" opening for him, which never happened.

How shocking and crushing it must be for these new anti-American extremists to actually realise that 100,000 "Victory For Stupidity" Americans could gather to hear a political speech because they were interested in...politics?

Maybe they preferred it when Americans didn't pay enough attention to national politics so that George W. Bush could get 'elected' twice? Because Americans sure seem to be paying attention now, don't they?

Seriously, all of you Murdoch-sponsored anti-American extremists need to GET SOME HELP.

Howard Speaks...More Guff And Twaddle

'Conservative' Losers Claim Victory, For Losing

By Darryl Mason

John Howard has given his first interview since his humiliating election annihilation in November last year. Don't get too excited there, Howard's interview is about as dry and lifeless as a warm glass of salt and sand. But then, that shouldn't come as a surprise.

More interesting than most of what Howard has to say, is who he decided to say it to. That would be Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian newspaper.

You remember Janet, surely? She was the one who told Howard a few months out from the 2007 election that he had to quit, for the good of the Liberal Party, and for the ultimate benefit of Australian conservatism.

Here's a little flashback from Janet :

Under Howard it became cool to be a conservative. He rebuilt a political philosophy of individual responsibility for a new generation. His legacy is profound...

But now he must go. The Howard factor is there. Where once it meant success, now it presages defeat.

Of course, that column from Janet, back in September, 2007, didn't come as a complete shock to Howard. How could it? Janet rang Howard's office to let him know what she was publishing, before she even wrote it :

She's not an independent columnist, with scant regard for the impact of her opinion, as a truly fearless and uncompromising columnist must be. She is a propaganda outlet for John Howard, and has been a key player in the current game of "Howard Must Quit"/"Howard Must Stay" that has dominated political media coverage for the past eight days. The Game that is meant to show just how tough and resilient Howard can be, and how ready he is for the Big Fight in the coming election. And it all took place just when Howard needed it the most, when he is absolutely tanking in the polls....

In trying to fill in the gaps around the dull Howard quotes in her story - it being painfully obvious that he has little of anything fresh or interesting to say - Janet sprays a fresh coat of much-needed varnish on her Monty Python-absurdity level theory that Howard's hammering in the election, and the evisceration of the Liberal Party in general, actually means that conservatism is victorious in Australia :

Howard’s critics still don’t get it. In the sweep of history, conservatism has triumphed.

Since the election of the Rudd Government, the familiar refrain is that conservatism is beat. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said that the right-left labels no longer apply. Yet, Rudd eagerly embraced much of the conservative agenda.

Yes, she's right. Rudd did embrace "much of the conservative agenda". That would be the "conservative agenda" of saying 'Sorry' to Aborigines, ratifying Kyoto, culling politicians' perks, pulling combat troops out of Iraq, nixing nuclear power, ramping up renewable energy programs, rewiring the Australian economy to deal with climate change, embracing carbon trading, obliterating WorkChoices and on and on.

You know, the 'New Conservatism'. It's not much like the old Howard conservatism, but it's far more popular and reflective of the Australia that most Australians want to live in.

Janet actually sums up the John Howard of 2008 perfectly in the story's intro :

For Howard, it is history that counts. And he is confident that history is on his side.

As long as people like Janet are writing the history, that is.

Some more desperate myth-making from Janet :

To be sure, Howard bears much of the blame for the final stain that tarnishes his record. After all, a leader is inevitably defined by their last act in office. Howard’s failure to heed the advice of his senior Liberal colleagues to hand over the leadership to Peter Costello last September will always be remembered as a final act of hubris. Deciding to stay on, preferring to be remembered by history as a fighter, not a quitter, knowing that electoral defeat was ahead, his leadership record would be indelibly marked down.

Keep spinning the myth, Janet, that if Costello became leader in September, election victory would have been in the bag. Dozens of polls in Janet's own newspaper reported all through 2007 that while Howard remained largely popular with voters, the Liberal Party, as in the primary political entity of Australian conservatism, was dying a long overdue death.

If the following quote from John Howard is anything to go by, he might want to check with medical professionals to see that at least a few of his neural pathways are still lighting up before he opens his mouth :

“The most constant comment made in the lead-up to the last election is that Rudd was trying to be a younger version of me. And there is some truth to that ... He did not win because he was different. He won because he was like me.”

Actually the most "constant comment" in the lead-up to the last election was that Howard was a tired old man, fresh out of ideas.

Poor John. He really did believe all that crap about Rudd being "a younger version of Howard" spouted by the likes of Janet, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and most of the op-ed writers of The Australian.

For those who were recently claiming that John Howard will never become like former prime ministers Paul Keating, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, popping up in the media waffling embarrassing piffle, it's too late. Howard's clearly ready now to take his place in the all-singing, all-dancing cast of Nutty Old PMs Who Can't Stop Talking Absolute Bollocks.

It's hard to decide what is more pathetic, and sad. The delusional propaganda from media-stacking conservatives like Janet Albrechtsen that they really won the election by losing the election, or the fact that Howard now clearly believes the line that Rudd is "a younger, better looking Howard" and that's the only reason why Labor was victorious.

Doesn't John Howard know that irony-rich line was dreamed up and distributed, via phone calls and boozy lunches to Howard Huggers, like Janet, by his own media strategists?

They say you shouldn't believe your own press. But in Howard's case, he shouldn't believe turd-polishing propaganda that originated from his own office and PR people, no matter how attractive and ego-inflating it may be.

Expect John Howard to be writing a weekly column for The Australian by June. He should feel right at home.

Howard-Hugging Columnist Warned Prime Minister Of Her 'Time To Go' Op-Ed Before She Even Finished Writing It

By Darryl Mason

A columnist for The Australian newspaper - the supposedly "balanced" and "not biased at all" flagship of the Australian Murdoch media empire - has been outed as not only a rabid supporter of prime minister John Howard, but also one that lets the prime minister know, days in advance, when she is writing an op-ed that may reflect badly on him.

Who's doing what now?

Yes. Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for The Australian, rang John Howard's office before she had even written her column about why it was time for him to step down, to let him know what she was planning to write.

She called other ministers as well, allowing them the opportunity to try and talk her out of writing the 'Howard Must Go' column that supposedly "rocked the Howard government" when it appeared in The Australian on September 7.

How do we know all this? Because it's right there in the pages of The Australian newspaper today :

Albrechtsen is an unashamed and long-term Howard supporter who decided to write a special column for Friday's newspaper urging Howard to go.

On Wednesday and Thursday the columnist - a strong supporter of Turnbull, and whose husband, John O'Sullivan, campaigns for the Environment Minister in his Sydney electorate of Wentworth - told Turnbull, as well as Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin and Downer, of her plans.

She also told the Prime Minister's office. She said yesterday she talked to the ministers "as a courtesy".

Turnbull says he urged her not to write it, as did Abbott and Howard's office.

Any sliver of credibility that Janet Albrechtsen may have had is now completely gone.

She's not an independent columnist, with scant regard for the impact of her opinion, as a truly fearless and uncompromising columnist must be. She is a propaganda outlet for John Howard, and has been a key player in the current game of "Howard Must Quit"/"Howard Must Stay" that has dominated political media coverage for the past eight days. The Game that is meant to show just how tough and resilient Howard can be, and how ready he is for the Big Fight in the coming election. And it all took place just when Howard needed it the most, when he is absolutely tanking in the polls.

You can see it all for yourself in Albrechtsen's original 'Howard Must Go' column, that was supposed to have earthquaked the Howard government. We know now it did nothing of the sort. They all knew it was coming. Not only did they know it was coming, they knew what the column was going to be about before she had even finished writing it.

In the column, Albrechtsen first devotes hundreds of words to reminding readers just how brilliant a prime minister John Howard has been, and how we'd all be eating dirt and back on chain gangs cracking sandstone slabs if he hadn't graced us with his leadership.

She immediately follows all this with one of the most gag-inducing paragraphs I've seen in any newspaper all year :

Under Howard it became cool to be a conservative. He rebuilt a political philosophy of individual responsibility for a new generation. His legacy is profound...

Bring me another bucket.

When she supposedly unleashed on Howard, it was with a feather :

But now he must go. The Howard factor is there. Where once it meant success, now it presages defeat.

Hmm, tell us something we don't know, Janet.

Do you ever get the feeling that you're being conned?


Of course, Albrechtsen's column came at a very opportune time for The Australian newspaper as well.

Murdoch's national broadsheet is widely mocked and ridiculed across the Australian media, the public and within political circles for being the 'Government Gazette'. There was a joke that went around last year for a few days : Why don't you ever see John Howard reading The Australian newspaper? Because he already knows what it will say about him.

Albrechtsen has proved the joke is actually reality.

Her column advising Howard to pack it in and hand over the leadership to Peter Costello was seen as proof that The Australian was not staffed by Howard-huggers and federal government propagandists.

And the timing was perfect. On the brink of an election, when The Australian most surely needs to regain its credibility and give the appearance of being unbiased, up pops Albrechtsen, the "unashamed...long-time Howard supporter", demanding he step aside. Well, not demanding. Suggesting he step aside would be more accurate.

But of course, we know now Albrechtsen didn't just write and publish this column, one of the few she's ever written that even dared to slightly criticise Howard. She actually got on the blower
and called the PM's office, before the column was published, to let Howard know what was coming. She called other ministers and gave them the opportunity to talk her out of it, or perhaps more importantly, convince her to tone it down.

Why would she do this?

Why would a columnist for a newspaper even contemplate doing such a thing, let alone making the calls?

Remember, Albrechtsen said herself in The Australian newspaper today that she called the prime minister, and at least two other Howard government ministers, "as a courtesy."

That is, she called to give them notice and to allow them all to fully prepare for the negative fallout that they knew would surely follow the column's appearance in The Australian, to craft their answers and reactions to media questions days in advance.

Albrechtsen didn't voice her opinion, boldly, honestly, and without regard for who may be offended by her thoughts, she actually tipped off the key players in the Howard government, and Howard himself, before she 'dared' to say it was time for him to go. Before she even typed the words.

Incredible.

Just remember what Janet did every time you see her column, or any column, in The Australian that is allegedly critical of the Howard government, or any of its key ministers.

You may well begin to wonder, as you probably should if Albrechtsen is any example to go by, 'Did they tell Howard what they were writing about?' 'Did they warn Alexander Downer they were going to criticise him today?' 'Did Howard government ministers try and talk this columnist out of writing this piece?' 'Was this column different before the columnist discussed what he/she had written with some Howard government minister?'

Janet Albrechtsen is utterly compromised, even when she is critical of John Howard, because she dwells in a compromised world where she cannot write nor say what she wants, when she wants, and to hell with the consequences.

So why does she get column space in the newspaper, and prominent positioning on The Australian's website?

Well, why do you think?


Shock! Murdoch Journalist Denies Murdoch Media Conspiracy

Murdoch Conservatives Cut Off Howard's Head - Albretchsen And Bolt Lead The Chant : "Howard Must Go"