Paul Madigan & The Humans : ‘Prick’

Paul Madigan & The Humans [Ed Bates (Sports) & Wayne Duncan (Daddy Cool) & Ross Hannaford (Daddy Cool) & Peter Ingliss (Skyhooks) & Freddie Strauks (Skyhooks)].

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2018 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in Music and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Paul Madigan & The Humans : ‘Prick’

  1. @ndy says:

    Madigan is the son of late mining magnate Sir Russel Madigan (see : Magnate’s son made death threats, Mark Russell, The Age, October 30, 2005).

    Sir Russel died in 1999.

    Madigan was dismissed by music radio station 3RRR in 1988 for his on air Holocaust denial.

    Failed ‘quality’ Australians Against Further Immigration candidate Paul Madigan showed his true colours last week. Madigan, who stood against Gareth Evans as the AAFI candidate for Holt opened the AAFI campaign launch back in January singing bush ballads that left the crowd squirming. A former 3RRR radio announcer and Colonel Gaddafi acolyte, Madigan, used to hang out in his younger days with the Sydney chapter of the Australian National Socialist Party. Before being dismissed from 3RRR Madigan used to keep his grizzly radio-Nazi audience entertained with claims like, “only 100 Jews were killed by the Nazis – the rest died of typhoid” and “the only good thing the Nazis did was to expel them.” Don’t be surprised to learn that on the 5 September 1987, a younger but equally obnoxious David Irving gave a talk at Madigan’s Melbourne home. Now Madigan’s back entertaining Melbourne’s live music aficionados. Last Sunday he was playing at the Cricketer’s Arms Hotel in Richmond. The promotional flyer Mad Madigan faxed out to the press read “Hairy legs, Aborigines and Jews pay $15 at the door. Students are not allowed in. Free thinking individuals pay no admission.” ~ Mark Kapel, Australia/Israel Review, October 21–November 10, 1996.

    Madigan received 1,171 votes (1.7%) as AAFI’s candidate for Holt in 1996. In 2004, he ran in Flinders as an Independent, gaining 1,043 votes (1.3%).

    AAFI had no policies on Jewish issues, but indicative of the way antisemitism was part of their xenophobic world view, AAFI election candidate Paul Madigan, who described how “All Italians are thieves,” spoke of a “Japanese invasion,” and accused Aborigines of “reverse racism,” claimed that figures of Holocaust victims have been “changed” upward to six million.

    Although Holocaust denial was not AAFI policy, the party courted deniers as part of their campaigning, for example, speaking regularly at League meetings. As AAFI turned to deniers for promotion, with AAFI spokesman Dennis McCormack, for example, having an article published in the 1994 edition of Your Rights, they developed an increasingly close relationship to the deniers. This led Muriden to endorse AAFI in his Strategy column as the party to support in the 1996 Federal election, helping make deniers influential players in Australian far Right politics. ~ Danny Ben-Moshe, ‘Holocaust Denial in Australia’, Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism (ACTA), No.25 (Jerusalem, SICSA, 2005) [PDF].

    AAFI was registered on 16 February 1990, deregistered on 23 July 1999, registered again on 27 September 2001 and again deregistered on 7 December 2005.

  2. Dr. Cam says:

    That’s showbiz, baby!

  3. paul madigan says:

    If you not only believe the vicious slanders the zionists peddle against those sympathetic to the Palestinians, but republish them with no attempt at all to find the truth (let alone contact the victim of your second hand bullying and abuse) then you are complicit in the dispossession and murder of defenceless people in Gaza and the West Bank. What hurt you can do me is by comparison insignificant. In fact the result for me is that I don’t care any more even about the Palestinians… for whom I sacrificed a lot. Have any of you ever sacrificed anything for anyone else? Or just get your social kudos by being anonymous fake anti racists? Madigan

  4. lumpnboy says:

    I remember hearing Madigan when I was a teenager, and vaguely realising that his subsequent disappearance from RRR involved some controversy – his timeslot had been on the same day as Leaping Larry L’s crew and the Lawyers Guns and Money people, IIRC.

    But my only direct, in-person experience with AAFI people, at least that I know of, was in late 1994. For what it is worth, in case it might be of some minor interest, I’ll type out below part of what I wrote a few months later. (I bothered to find it mostly so I’m not relying on my memory, and I will reproduce sections despite the fact that quoting this piece entails the incriminating revelation that I was momentarily involved in some unimpressive(ly) electoral politics at the time, even if limited to this one moment of handing out leaflets for a few hours at the request of a friend – mea culpa and such, but I think we can all agree that I am very brave for swinging into autobiography in this self-exposing way):

    In November last year I handed out leaflets at the Kooyong by-election, for a Green candidate in whom I had little faith [academic philosopher of ethics Peter Singer, who got 28 percent or over 16 000 votes – there was no ALP candidate, so that was almost 36 percent on two party preferred calculations]. While doing so I encountered a geeky man passing out material for a group called Australians Against Further Immigration. [The AAFI candidate was Angela Walker, who got 4 573 votes or almost 8 percent.] This material was filled with dire warnings that ‘our culture’ was being ‘swamped’, and that immigration must cease forthwith. Only those who desired to ‘fit in’ with the ‘Aussie mainstream’ were to be permitted entry. In conversation this creepy fellow denied any racism but proclaimed a fervent nationalism. He denied that Australians Against Further Immigration was a fascistic organisation but declared the group to be Australia’s ‘true patriotic conservatives’. Both he and his material were very critical of the Liberal Party candidate for Kooyong on the basis of an allegedly insufficient opposition to ‘multiculturalism’. Most emphatically of all, he warned of impending conflict should immigration continue.

    This last statement made me wonder about the political space which Australians Against Further Immigration seeks to occupy. Unlike such overtly fascistic groups such as National Action, their public image is not that of the attack squad engaged, for example, in violence against Asians. Their public image is sufficiently clean, for example, that one ALP parliamentarian felt able to publicly declare his support for the Australians Against Further Immigration candidate in Kooyong. Apart from parts of the National Party, Australians Against Further Immigration probably counts as the most likely candidate the far Right has for entry into the mainstream of Australian politics. Their agenda reduces all politics to one thing: immigration. From unemployment to the environment, ‘foreigners’ are to blame.

    Recently in Germany there were severe restrictions placed on immigration, a policy change directly related to the widespread anti-immigrant violence being perpetrated by Germany’s substantial neo-Nazi networks and skinhead gangs. ‘Respectable’ ultra-conservatives – fascists by another name – in alliance with other right-wing forces, played the role of sociologist. In essence they said ‘we oppose racist violence, and the way that this can be stopped is to stop the immigration which is provoking the people’. Coincidentally, this was precisely the demand the Nazis were making, and when the German parliament enacted anti-immigrant legislation the Nazis promptly held a victory march.

    By analogy I expect that Australians Against Further Immigration will seek to profit from any violence perpetrated by Australia’s own racist gangs – that is, violence perpetrated by disreputable fascists. This is one tactic by which legal fascism can be absorbed as mainstream, acceptable politics: fascists become merely conservatives, concerned about social harmony. The term ‘fascist’, and indeed that of ‘racist’, comes to apply only to overt Nazis, skinhead gangs, youth in boots, preachers of racial hatred and similar fuckwits. These terms will not be applied to those claiming to be concerned merely with ‘preserving our culture’ or with ‘preventing the violence’ which will arise, they claim, from immigration and the ‘mixing of cultures’. […]

    There thus arises the new possibility of an ‘acceptable’, bourgeois, legal fascism – which may or may not use the name.

    Australians Against Further Immigration, who most certainly do not use the name, managed to get seven percent [actually closer to eight, I rounded down when I should have rounded up] of the vote in Kooyong, a solid Liberal seat. The Young Liberal handing out at my booth in Kooyong agreed with virtually everything the man from Australians Against Further Immigration said. He denied that Australians against Further Immigration were racist, and even joined in criticism of the Liberal candidate, Petro Georgio, for being insufficiently critical of ‘ethnic enclaves’ and of those within Australia who, in his eyes, refused to ‘assimilate’ into ‘our’ culture – which both the Young Liberal and the other creep refused to define.

    Alan Smithee [i.e. me], ‘A Rabelais Guide to Assholes of Australia: Australians Against Further Immigration’, Rabelais 28 (1), February 1995, pp. 70-1.

    For few remarks with the benefit of hindsight:

    Firstly, I regret the loose way I used the word ‘skinheads’ seventeen years ago – I subsequently met a bunch of skins who, whatever their limitations, were neither fascists nor especially racist, and some who were active in struggle against both fascists and racism. They did not deserve to be put in the same category as the Hitler fan-club.

    Secondly, while AAFI never made it bigger than they were at that point, so far as I can tell, some of them would become involved in One Nation, which obviously had significantly overlapping rhetoric and sought a similar position within ‘respectable’ politics, until they were politically undercut by the ALP’s increasingly harsh border control and mandatory detention policies and willingness to deploy an overtly racialised law’n’order rhetoric in pretty much every state except Victoria, albeit within a discourse still marked by an investment in a version of multicultural patriotism. And then undercut by Liberal Party’s move to compete on broadly the same ground. And then to use the law as a weapon against an electoral threat to their Right.

    Thirdly, the remarks I made above about the Right of the National Party and their possible future seem to hold up fairly well, with the Nationals’ willingness to play their role in propagating a Coalition agenda of neoliberalisation helping, it seems, to create a space for ex-Nationals like Katter. To create a space in which such reactionary ex-Nationals can push a populism organised around certain well-chosen bigotries and an articulation of economic nationalism, funded by and with the assistance of genuinely creepy rich people like John Singleton and the like. Where One Nation was what might once have been referred to as a ‘petty bourgeois’ affair, Katter’s economic nationalism, folksy charm and all, is a more corporate-funded electoral insurgency and one which may last somewhat longer. A more proficient, better-funded Pauline Hanson in a cowboy hat, with the resources to use professionals in the development of political research and strategy, and with less obviously insane denizens of the far Right fringe publicly seen as running the show.

    And point number four: None of the above is contradicted by the role of certain trade unions, and certain parts of the organised Left, in helping to give Katter’s economic nationalism a ‘progressive’ credibility (or even, quite literally, a platform, as well as money). I’m looking at you, Communist Party of Australia, and I’m also referring to certain mostly-blue-collar unions whose toxic nationalism has been systematically ignored by many because of an inconvenient intersection with the official political horizon and mobilizing rhetoric of that ‘militant’ trade unionism admired by Leftists in not merely uncritical but largely unreflective ways – or at least with predetermined limits to the capacity to reflect.

    This is Australia, after all, in which the desire of Leftist mythologists to rewrite reality, especially in relation to the history and current role of the ‘labour movement’, remains at times remarkable. A country in which ‘progressive’ unionists will proudly boast of the historic role of Australia’s trade unions in the struggle against conscription in World War One, for example, without feeling the need to mention the degree to which such union resistance was articulated as a defence of white workers, who must not be sent abroad because employers will bring in non-white workers to work cheaply, and such workers must be kept out of the country in the interests of union solidarity and race purity, seen as absolutely compatible. (One can’t just read the IWW’s relatively congenial material from the period and imagine it reflected the movement as a whole.)

    Katter’s economic nationalist rhetoric may have endeared him to parts of the ETU, for instance, willing to give him a platform for his patriotic hostility to foreigners, because the Left blue-collar unions are often among the most vigorous in their active pursuit of a more brutal use of border control to ‘defend Aussie workers’. (‘Australian’ companies that seek to employ people in other countries are unpatriotic and un-Australian (cf. the recent Telstra dispute), but I’ve yet to hear any of the unions willing to mobilise around such crap condemn any ‘non-Australian’ company which seeks to set up shop in Australia. ‘We’re stealing jobs from [insert country]’ I don’t hear them cry in outrage.) Nor, if we want to understand the dynamics involved, should anyone be willing to just regard these tendencies as symptoms of union misleadership, or a lack of rank’n’file militancy/control , or insufficient union democracy and too much bureaucracy, or a conspiracy of the ruling class to use racism to divide the proletariat. Whatever validity any of the positions I have thus caricatured as descriptions of aspects of this situation, no adequate analysis of the production and experience of material interest in a divided and hierarchically integrated working class can come from what essentially become ways to avoid politically confronting the contradictions and consistencies of the historic and contemporary role of the unions in Australia.

    To this end the CFMEU, for example, has actively pressured employers to, in turn, force employees to sign contracts giving employers the power to easily check the citizenship and immigration status of their workers, giving up the right to privacy that meant that employers couldn’t just contact a government department and have that department be willing to tell them all about any worker’s status. The CFMEU then pressured employers to thoroughly make use of this power once they had managed to get all of their employees to sign away their nominal rights.

    Not content with this, the CFMEU has lobbied the Federal Government to remove the legal right to privacy in relation to such matters, so that an employer won’t even need to coerce workers into signing away their rights because they won’t have those rights in the first place. Creating a system of systematic surveillance is the key to control, bringing the border and border control into everyday life like a teacher in the US demanding that Latino kids prove they are not ‘illegals’ if they want to come to school.

  5. paul madigan says:

    thank you for posting my response…I am both surprised and impressed that you have. I hope that someone else will respond to the long description of AAFI above. I can’t be bothered. Paul

  6. lumpnboy says:

    Hey, I was being kind! I didn’t go on about the guy handing out AAFI material talking about the involvement of Australian political elites in the conspiracy to bring about One World Government…

  7. @ndy says:

    G’day Paul,

    Generally speaking, providing someone isn’t merely abusive or trolling, I publish commentary, even if critical. That said: I dunno what in the above account you regard as being factually incorrect, but you’re certainly free to point it out. Otherwise, I think it’s silly to suggest that, because I republish something from the ‘Australia/Israel Review’ or written by Danny Ben-Moshe, I’m therefore “complicit in the dispossession and murder of defenceless people in Gaza and the West Bank”: I think that bow could be stretched all the way from Melbourne to The Moon.

    lumpnboy:

  8. paul madigan says:

    some of the lies in a very short piece:

    1. “squirming”
    2. “acolyte”
    3. “Australian National Socialist Party”
    4. “only 100 killed”
    5. “radio nazi audience” …who? Andrew Peacock? my father’s oncologist? Geoff Richardson?
    6. David Irving was never at my home
    7. “Mad Madigan”
    8. “all Italians are thieves”

    these are all lies. And stooges like Gerard McManus are despicable enough to print them knowing them to be lies. Your contributor describing a AAFI person as “creepy” is all part of this personal denigration…playing the man not the idea. Some people might find Bob Brown or Adam Bandt or Michael Danby creepy…would it help the political dialogue if their opponents called them creepy? Maybe there was a creepy guy there but AAFI was not made up of creepy people. The Spencers (GP) Graeme Campbell (a real rural man) Dennis McCormack (who you mistakenly ridiculed here and is more like Professor Higgins than a creep)….and I myself…whatever else I might be…am not a creep. Please play the idea and not the man. Should Mad Madigan be countered by Dippy Danby and Pooey Bob, Jewliar and her honeymoon with Chattering Cheesehead Bolt in Occupied Palestine? or should we spend our time discussing important matters with respect? I think the latter…but I’m not holding my breath.

  9. lumpnboy says:

    Sure thing, creep.

  10. paul madigan says:

    lumpnboy is anonymous but I am not. Perhaps this phoney coward will come here and call me names to my face…does he dare to? I am easy to find.

    Israel’s very existence depends for its very existence upon the U.S. (with but token support from its acolytes). And it is up to the media here and in the U.K. and the U.S. to convince the poor bastards who pay for it (the taxpayers) that the wars the U.S. Israel lobby (the neo-cons, B’nai B’rith etc) have made us wage against Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya are justified and in those same taxpayers’ interests. They are not of course and are the reason we have “terror” and its associated erosion of what individual freedoms we had in these pretend democracies…where the self-elected elite impose policies against the wishes of sometimes as many as 80% of the population. That majority cannot vote for what it wants.

    Langer was sent to prison for telling the Australian voter that we could vote say Tom Smith 1 and everybody else 2. That was a valid vote and denied the system to declare a mandate for the policies which the two main parties share. Langer went to prison and the political elite changed the law so that now you must vote for every candidate in your preferred order. This means that every person in Australia is required by law to vote and that every one of you will vote in a Labor or Liberal politician except for the few electorates where the voters have the gumption to vote in enough numbers for a Green or an independent.

    It is not a “long bow” to suggest that anyone who assists the Zionists in destroying any hapless idiot who dares to challenge them anywhere in the media (radio in my case) is complicit in the abuse of the Palestinians. This is just a fact. It might be a small contribution but it all adds up to the blanket suppression of anyone who “dares to speak out”. So we have what I call the “tyranny of the seeming reasonable”…with high priests like Adams and Denton and Faine and Fraser and Manne and then all the weak bastards like Abbott and Gillard.

    People like me are really anti-authoritarian individualists who are much more anarchistic than anyone with a name like “anarchist”. So we get called racist and creepy and anything else which might seem to demean us. But we are the ones who would not have been Nazis when being a Nazi was the politically correct thing to be.

    Dennis McCormack warned me against contributing here…he said all I would earn would be personal invective. He was right as usual. Thus to spare myself I will take his further advice and disengage. It is a shame that those who like to preen themselves as greens and anarchists and lefties are in an unholy alliance with big capital in a pincer movement which has got the rest of us in Australia (and the US and UK etc) rounded up like sheep. Tony Hancock made a funny film “Call Me Genius” in which he was an artist in Paris under a beret declaring his individuality. Please don’t call yourself an anarchist if you are promoting an ideology…or even ganging up on a creep in the sand pit with your heroic mates.

  11. @ndy says:

    G’day again Paul,

    Um, what?

    Leaving aside the quality of your political analysis, I’ve not called you any names, merely: a) explained why my publication of your initial comment is not that unusual; b) invited you to correct any factual errors in the extracts I published and; c) disputed your assertion that, in publishing these extracts, I am therefore “complicit in the dispossession and murder of defenceless people in Gaza and the West Bank”.

    What a bastard.

    Otherwise, two things.

    First, what I know about your political engagement is your participation in AAFI and your radio broadcast. Apparently, you oppose (or did oppose) further immigration to Australia, and you have particular objections to Zionism, especially its influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically US state support for the state of Israel. In 1988(?), seemingly on the basis of your broadcasting either anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist material — or perhaps for some other reason, or combination of reasons — your show was pulled by RRR management. In 1996, you stood for the seat of Holt on behalf of AAFI, but didn’t manage to get very many votes. In 2004, you ran as an Independent, on the basis of what policies I dunno, with similar results.

    Beyond this, you claim to have sacrificed a lot for The Palestinians, but having sacrificed so much, you now you no longer care as to their fate. You also claim to be a heaps better anarchist than I am, tho’ fail to explain why publicly opposing further immigration to Australia and expressing opposition to Zionism makes this so: it seems like a bit of a silly claim to make, really.

    Secondly, you deny having: made the crowd squirm at at AAFI event in January 1996; ever followed Gaddafi; associated with members of the Sydney chapter of the ANSP in your youth; claimed only 100 Jews were killed by the Nazis; had a radio audience which might be described as ‘Nazi’; hosted David Irving at your home; stated that “all Italians are thieves”. (The ‘Mad Madigan’ thing I think was just Mark Kapel being mean. Feel free to call him ‘Mean Mark’ in retaliation if you like.)

    Given that the above was your final comment, I don’t think there’s much point in responding to your arguments; certainly, I’ve already made my own views on such matters pretty clear.

  12. paul madigan says:

    andy it was the other chap calling me names as you should be able to see. have fun with this:

  13. lumpnboy says:

    Oh for fuck’s sake Madigan,

    Grow up. I mean, I don’t consider you someone worth talking to at all, partly because of the crap you’re said to have said on RRR, but even if all of that turns out to be some truly bizarre misunderstanding and you didn’t make a whole series of racist and anti-Semitic remarks on radio, even if that is proved beyond a doubt and I somehow have to accept that to be true, it makes no difference at all. Because you ran with Australians Against Further Immigration for fucking parliament. You turd.

    I mean, maybe some of the kids these days are so young they don’t know what AAFI was, but I suspect maybe they have a sense that AAFI was a hardcore anti-immigration party, a truly and revoltingly reactionary bunch of nominally-single-issue far rightists combined, so far as I can tell at least, with dingbats who actually were far right but somehow didn’t see that their xenophobic drivel of various degrees of subtlety fit into a spectrum of just horrible political traditions/forces, or didn’t care. I consider that a fairly generous description, certainly not particularly polemical. What can I say, that is my opinion: AAFI were utter, utter scum of the first order, their every political statement a knife stabbed, mostly ineffectively, at people.

    Occasionally someone will try to give legitimacy to AAFI-style politics by saying something like ‘But I’m just like old Labor, way back, they were all for policies like the ones I’m proposing’. When they say this they are of course referring to immigration policy in the ages of White Australia if not of direct colonial invasion, and to the role the ALP and the trade union movement largely played in relation to these policies. But these are facts that show the horrible role of the ALP, they don’t make the anti-immigration idiots today look tolerable. These are people who would say the ALP is too foreigner-friendly these days, I’d be willing to guess, however subtle or strategic or not some of them are.

    I mean, I’m not saying that your party was in the same general space as Golden Dawn in Greece or anything, like if your party had been bigger and Australia had anything like generalised social conditions and forms of struggle manifest in Greece, then that party would be playing that same glorious role, like that is actually the logical development of where the AAFI wanted to be, on a spectrum between One Nation and something actually worse than that.

    Because the big thing was Keeping The Foreigners Out. And people who want to Keep The Foreigners Out, and politically organise so that is allegedly the sole platform on which they exist, those people are toxic to a degree that makes my stomach churn. They either want to further militarize the state to take care of keeping the foreigners out, in all of the many variants of surveillance and control actually entailed by this imperative everywhere the border operates which is at least potentially everywhere across the social system. Or if they don’t want the state further extended into the struggle against foreigners, then the only way it makes sense to me is as a call for the general population to, you know, take the problem in their own hands. You can imagine where that leads. In about one second.

    And this is not even getting into what the ‘class’ meaning of any rise of AAFI-style politics would have been, by any definition of ‘class’ worth defending – had the AAFI, for example, risen, instead of, well, not.

    As it is this has been a sterling decade for the popular and violent end of ‘patriotic Aussie’ sentiment, which rose like a plague in this city of Melbourne, like a diffuse pogrom, as has been noted. The existence of this wave was then denied by the wounded patriot in, if not us all, at least a hell of a lot. I think the impulses involved in your party’s politics and those of Melbourne’s racial violence are broadly similar, even if they don’t necessarily lead to the exact same actions, and in moderately complicated ways they can complement each other and feed each other, even if not every instance of either type of horrible tendency joins with or aids every other one. You see where I’m going with this?

    But enough, my comment wasn’t really about you personally. Though I think, even just on the basis that you seem not to have any problem with having run with AAFI, that you are an awful person, I really do, just dreadful. I know you said don’t insult the man discuss the politics or be reasonable or something blah blah, but you see for everyone there is a limit to that, people who are ‘beyond the pale’ (to use a phrase the maybe dubious origins of which I have no knowledge of whatsoever), people with whom they will not idly chat like the other person is not, in fact, ‘beyond the pale’. The less socially-capable kind of war criminals, and such, just to invoke the idea of categories so seemingly universal as to effectively demonstrate the generalised existence of the line to which I am referring. You are comfortably on the other side of my definition. Like the BNP and the EDL, AAFI was an ugly phenomenon. Emetic, in fact.

    With my utterly secret identity, lumpnboy.

  14. paul madigan says:

    G’day Andy,

    Do you not consider “lumpnboy” to be abusive? You might justify publishing his nasty personal invective by saying he is not being “merely abusive”…which you say you don’t allow. I see elsewhere here an apologist for Stalin using similarly violent language against somebody who is not a Stalin fan. Neither this cowardly turd slinger or I am important…he is anonymous and I am insignificant…but the issues we fail to sensibly discuss are. They determine the only two environments we have…the social one and the natural one.

    AAFI was not as this deranged hater defames it. And the people I met in association with it were not as he describes (and may even imagine). I will see if I can find a copy of the manifesto AAFI published and distributed all those years ago and show it to you. If you don’t like any of its contents I believe it would be more helpful to your position to simply say so and perhaps say why…merely calling the authors turds won’t help them see where you might think them wrong.

    One of the troubles here is that we are talking about social and political ideas and positions. It is hard enough even for a philosopher or a physicist to prove a chair is there. No one can actually prove that they are right about how we should make our society. Perhaps that is why they get so red in the face when anyone dares to have a different opinion. Sometimes they get more than red in the face as they did with Socrates and as that chap in Norway did recently. Shouting and name calling is the common road to physical violence and murder. Lawyers thrive on people who can’t talk to each other. If we cannot be civil the biggest bully wins…which happens to be capitalism and its sociopathic corporations here now…with a bit of help from the no borders no race no nation no separate cultures etc self-glorifying do-gooders who are too busy shouting at “racists” and congratulating each other to notice what it is they are actually helping to perpetrate.

    Hope I can find the AAFI thing tomorrow. Paul

  15. @ndy says:

    I think lumpnboy is being mildly abusive — for reasons which they elaborate upon. I also think referring to them as a “cowardly turd slinger” is mildly abusive.

    *shugs*

    To clarify my policy: as noted above, I generally don’t publish abuse; obviously then, sometimes I do.

    My reasons for doing so have changed somewhat over the years, and I now tend to bin merely abusive comments (by which I mean batshit comments along the lines of “DIE NIGGER LOVER!” and so on), though not always if the stoopid on display happens to amuse me. I used to publish more such comments in the past, partly because a number of critics alleged that I was fabricating the existence of such batshittery, and partly because, sometimes, documenting such nonsense can serve a useful purpose. In any case, I think it’s now fairly widely accepted that this shite exists, and in a concentrated form on sites like Facebook, so there’s little need for me to document it. For what it’s worth, here’s a blast from the past from a KKK supporter: “[E]at shit you puking bastards. It is a damn shame you were not at the original event in Greensboro and standing right out in front of that crowd of niggers and commies.”

    *rolls eyes*

    You refer to “an apologist for Stalin”. Presumably, you mean Peter Watson. As a teenage Stalinist turned teenage neo-Nazi, Peter made many extremely bizarre comments on my blog — I think I can even remember lumpnboy trying to talk sense to him at one point. A few months ago, Peter was the ALP candidate for the seat of Southern Downs in Queensland. Funnily enough, some of the stoopid he wrote on my blog was discovered by a journo for the Courier Mail — and the rest, as they say, is history

    Finally:

    1.

    “I am,” I said to no one there. And no one heard at all, not even the chair.

    2.

  16. paul madigan says:

    G’day Andy.

    So lumpnboy is a they?

    I appreciate your editorial policy. We all have our bias but you unusually allow it seems a right of reply.

    Adam Slonim of the Jewish Board of Deputies (The Witchdoctors) said in the Jewish News that as president his “greatest achievement” was “getting Paul Madigan off the air and changing the political stance of 3RRR”. The second part of his boast should in my opinion alarm people more than the first. It might be the case that you Andy would not have buckled under the pressure and sacked your most popular broadcaster (the “best broadcaster in Australia” according to past station manager Reece Lambshed). More people listened at breakfast and drive of course. Sue Brookes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation declared that me being taken off air was “an act of political censorship” and that I should be reinstated. A recent book reported her as saying exactly the opposite. The Herald published half a page of the sort of stuff you regurgitated at the top of this discussion. McManus who was the conduit “knew I would be angry” and knew he was just a tool. Lawyers said I could not possibly afford to sue the Herald. Of course the Herald would not publish even a short letter of protest. So for what it is worth Andy you are (literally) infinitely fairer than McManus or the Herald (or the print version of the ABC…The Age) or the stooges Slonim put in charge of RRR. Danny Ben Moshe of B’nai B’rith (they actually kill people in the USA…see Alex Odeh murder re Klinghoffer) peddles this stuff about me.

    I am still attempting to send the AAFI manifesto. I hope it is not too big a file.

    For what it is worth: In my opinion “multiculturalism” is in fact enforced multiracialism with no culture. It has been imposed upon unwilling populations in white countries. The melting pot was not intended to mash up indigenous cultures but it will. The Dutch had an indigenous culture and people. The culture of the host community is denigrated and undermined to soften it up for the take over. But the result is not multiculture. In Australia the dominant culture is now American and very few Americans live here. We have no Italian culture here in spite of a huge Italian population which retains its chauvinism but its culture is merely nostalgic. At a friend’s birthday party (he has been here 50 years) I was the only Australian there. And my association with migrants who have spent nearly all their life here… for example an Italian who got here in 1948, his very old age is spent in isolated memory of his early Italian days. His middle aged children and his grand children know nothing of his fundamental growing up. The multiculturalists don’t seriously consider whether their offer of mobile phones and McDonalds is really good for the migrants themselves. Is it worth abandoning a home land for a washing machine? The ultimate result of multiculturalism is a world wide monoculture with an enormous population of powerless people with no identity. To be excommunicated or exiled used to be a terrible punishment. Now we will all be exiles amongst exiles. And Bob Brown’s “fellow earthies” will not be happy hippies living with him in the rain forest but queuing up for hideously manufactured food in a world where they are nothing but units of consumerism. Almost non persons. And they will all be able to tap away at keyboards like this one and they will all be as impotent as me and lumpnboy.

    We do not live in a representative democracy. But I do see ibis outside and will pick olives today and perhaps catch a few King George whiting. I would prefer to be able to concede defeat if we could declare that Australia finished in 2000. That Uncle Paul lost his leg for nothing in WW1. That we now live in UN Mandated Territory U3S and that I am Mudperson x7m&;ns6*SE. Rather than this pretence.

    But as my final feeble last gasp I will be urging you to remember the NO DAMS campaign and write REDUCE IMMIGRATION atop your ballot paper. I will be a candidate in the Flinders electorate to promote this idea. Dennis McCormack might well do the same. You don’t even have to tell your p.c. daughter that you have grown the suggestion of a testicle or a trace of Boudicca. (Was she an anti-immigrant racist? Is the Dalai Lama in any way similar to Bruce Ruxton in resisting Chinese invasion?) You don’t even have to have your car vandalised for flying Uncle Paul’s flag. Just write REDUCE IMMIGRATION on top of your ballot paper. Then make sure you fill out the card properly. The irony of this is that you will then have to vote for the continuing massive immigration programme we now have and its attendant “multiculturalism” as I explained above. But at least you have silently written REDUCE IMMIGRATION on the top of your ballot paper.

    By the way…was Uncle Paul being lied to when he was told he lost his leg in France fighting for “The Australian Way Of Life”? Paul

  17. paul madigan says:

    p.s. Andy am too illiterate to transfer pdf file to here. Will email to you and you, if you care to, will post it here. I think that if the people who were AAFI are to be denigrated here it is reasonable to have their manifesto posted here as well.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.