Brenton
Bolt: Australia’s David Irving
February 12th 2007 04:35
Bolt
However, love him or loath him, you have to admit he’s convincing. In fact, he’s probably the most convincing, controversial figure since David Irving.
“Whoa,” I hear you say, “is that a Defamation Lawsuit I hear coming? You can’t just accuse this writer of being some kind of extreme Neo-Nazi type extreme historian!”
Of course not. However, while Mr Bolt’s ideologies aren’t exactly of the Nazi type, many of his arguments have fundamentals echoed powerfully in Mr Irving’s work.
The similarity lies in the methods they use to promote their individual views. Both look at cases of genocide attacks (under the UN definition, Australia’s early atrocities against Aboriginal Australians easily represented genocide) against specific minority groups, which, because of their very illegal nature, were not widely covered. Both claim that, on this basis, of limited information, if you can’t prove it happened (with written evidence, not simply verbal claims) it just didn’t.
If you were going to murder masses of Jews, would you record it? I know I (looking at things logistically, rather than anti-semantically) certainly wouldn’t. And if I was off to murder a group of Aboriginals, I know I wouldn’t record it. Even in a case where murder of certain racial groups was widely accepted (indeed the educated view of the time was widely that the Aboriginals would inevitably (though some considered, regrettably) just die out) it was still by no means legal. Hence, these things were not well recorded. So it comes down to spoken evidence from the Aboriginals themselves. Which, as with all spoken evidence, genuine or not, is pretty easy to disregard and discredit.
Andrew Bolt might not be a liar, intentionally. But he’s willing to mess with the facts in a way that is deceptive. He has a criminal neglect for the truth. And he is doing to our Aboriginal people, something a lot like what David Irving was disallowed to enter Australia for doing to the Jews.
IMAGE used under fair use.
| 73 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Activist Links: (Request one)
Vitamins are criminal?
Just say Know
Could Corporate Interests Destroy The Internet as we Know it?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
One time he questioned what a refugee is, after which a reader pointed him to the actual definition of one by internation law, he didn't even reply proper, just dodged it.
The way he argues is by trying to make facts sound weak and by creating an alternative history based on twisted truths. He's just found himself this niche he goes off of nowadays, thats all really.
The one time I did agree with him was with the whole corby incident, he is a smart man, he's just pointing opposite to where most politically neutral people are.
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
That whole holocaust argument 'why would you record it'? Well if you're arrogant enough to try and pull something like this off, wouldn't you record it so history doesn't forget? it takes someone psychotic to undertake ethnic cleansing you can't apply logic to it.
Anyway, Bolt sounds like the kind of guy who doesn't actually bring anything to the table. Just tries to be controversial. Being controversial for controversial sake doesn't make you a bright person with wisdom and insight that the rest of us lack.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Damo
Derrin Hinch (Shame,shame.shame)
Alan Jones (Lawsuites equals good ratings)
and
Andrew Bolt.
He comes from the school of sticking to your guns even when proved wrong because some will always believe you. I think the term sophist is the appropriate and that is me at my most scathing.
I have looked at the way he argues on the insiders and here is what I have noticed.
-His statements assume that he has possession of some secret knowledge.
-If you mention common knowledge he will ask for two examples and focus on those two.
-He must read a hell of a lot of Tom Clancy novels.
-Everything regardless of what it is must have a pro-Rightwing bent.
-The Left is always refered to the loony Left.
-Facts are selected for their emotional impact against a group he is targeting.
-He thinks he is an expert in terrorism (I balk at that)
-War is good, very good.
However like any good sophist he is practiced in the art of manipulation and deception. Hence I find his articles grammatically correct defences of the indefensible.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum