THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Monday, July 25, 2011


In his column today, Murdoch journalist Andrew Bolt defends the creed of hate that motivated the killing of more than 90 people in Norway.

In his article, which he titles ‘Look not at his creed but at his wounds’, Bolt attempts to excuse the actions of Breivik by portraying him as being deeply frustrated by a sense of “powerlessness” which Bolt suggests is bought on by being engulfed by Islam, and “rejection” because of coming from a broken family.

While Bolt has used various superlatives to describe what Breivik had done including ‘murder’ and ‘atrocity’, etc., Bolt has consistently failed to wholeheartedly condemn the crime or the ‘creed’ that motivated it.

Fortunately, apart from a few of Bolt’s regular far-right Islamophobic supporters, most comments, even from some who often support Bolt, are critical of him for taking this stance.

After a careful read of Bolt’s post one can only conclude that Bolt is actually supportive of the reason why Breivik committed this crime. Certainly Andrew Bolt and his Islamophobic supporters in Australia are on exactly the same wavelength as Breivik. It was only a matter of time before Bolt's influence manifested itself in this type of violence.We have Murdoch to thank for the part Bolt has played in bringing the kind of hate-filled thinking Breivik has displayed to Australia.

Murdoch should immediately sack this hate-monger before his Islamophobic nonsense gains a foothold in Australia and culminates in the same kind of tragedy that happened in Norway.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I've never read any of Bolt's 'work' but have heard enough of him occasionally on 'Insiders' on ABC radio on Sunday mornings as I potter about the shed and indoors during my well deserved weekends off! (too right too!)

I know a thug and bully when I hear one and his 'insistant' tone is enough for me to just tune the blighter out.
Some may criticise me for making a decision without giving him a proper hearing, but life is too short and discernment is a skill we should all learn so to not waste time and effort resolving the dross from the valuable.
One should have an attuned ear to weed out the rubbish methinks.

Having said that and noting Damian's usefully surgical dismantling of Bolt's 'work', I ask myself though, if he needs any more attention?.

Is there a danger in continuing to give prominence to such a man, when other topics would be more worthy?.

In a spirit of discernment and outside insight, I wonder if the likes of Bolt should just be ignored as they have clearly no more credibility due to their excesses in the past, nd as such having 'crossed the line' and blotted their copybooks, we should just dismiss and ignore them in future.

Politicians, individuals and even nations, can 'cross the line' and once trasngressed, alienate others form which they can never recover.

Look again at the US and the increasing concern internationally over their economic irresponsibility and the impact its having globally.
Default or not, many are angry that it has already come to this, even of they pull back from the brink, now merely days before the cliff edge, the world is put through more strain at their hands.
I suspect people won't forget that arrogant irresponsibility of holding the world hostage.
Heaven forbid if they actually jump off the cliff and default!.

Thanks again,

Nylon Shirt