Set out below are citations from columns of Jennifer Oriel published in The Australian in and after 2017, with some of my commentary. They are all taken from Passing Bull Volumes 2 and 3 published on Amazon.
The remarks attributed to Jennifer Oriel in my opinion show the following attributes:
- A high level of ideological indoctrination and dogma – to the point of apparent brainwashing.
- Fatuous, adolescent phrasing that has a tribal or conspiratorial air about it.
- A sustained sense of being threatened or persecuted – in tribal terms, these people feel existentially threatened, so that their core values are in peril.
- The world is full of demons and bogeymen and Western patriots are being vilified.
- There is an absence of restraint, or the tolerance that that word implies. It is what the American historian Richard Hofstadter called the ‘paranoid style’ – ‘heated exaggeration, suspiciousness and conspiratorial fantasy.’
- There is a felt need to strike back, to find a scapegoat.
- Pluralism is a sign of weakness – what is needed is a muscular response to the threats to civilisation as we know it.
- It’s OK to play rough.
- People need to be fed propaganda on Eurocentricity – that is presumably where the Ramsay Centre comes into play.
- There is a concentration on a largely imaginary past and a wholly imaginary future.
- There is a childlike faith in the capacity of right minded people – if you prefer, the Strong Man – to prevail over the forces of evil.
- We must identify with Western civilisation because that is what made us and what defines as being different from those who do not share our heritage. Heritage is all.
- That civilisation is inseparable from Christianity – the Jews apparently don’t get a look-in.
- We can confidently assert that Islam is incompatible with Western civilisation.
- The final judgment is therefore irrefutable – Islam is the enemy of Western civilisation.
- Muslim migrants are therefore suspect and must be closely watched – if indeed we continue to admit them.
- If there is a difference between a Muslim and a jihadi, it is not one that has been identified by the columnist.
- We can therefore associate with the new right which has come back to take back our civilisation.
- People like Wilders, Orban and Trump have been sadly misunderstood if not vilified. Each is in his own way a patriot.
- Nationalism is a good.
- We can therefore properly discriminate against Muslims on the ground of their faith and we can incite conflict against them.
Now, it is a matter for you to see which if any of those attitudes is revealed by the evident history and beliefs of the man charged with murder after the massacre at Christchurch – or of Fraser Anning.
Some clever person may have an ingenious or nuanced argument that the enshrinement of Western civilisation is not the same as advocating white supremacy – I have not seen one – but I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion from those remarks that Muslims are by their faith precluded from being good citizens of our Commonwealth. If it matters, that looks to be very like the offence committed by a Trump acolyte on Fox News and for which even that outfit has taken action against her.
May I add one personal comment? I am not a card carrying member of any church, but the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth runs very deeply inside me. Words cannot express my revulsion that anyone putting out this kind of vile tripe could invoke in their aid the life or teaching of the man who preached the Sermon on the Mount.
Extracts from Passing Bull Volumes 2 and3
In the place of enlightenment, Hillary Clinton champions emotionalism, unreason and the barbarian fetish for supernatural rule over the sovereignty of liberal democratic people. Donald Trump rises on a reactionary platform typified by an oppositional stance to anything establishment. Neither champions reason. Neither champions the form of freedom. Neither promises the redemption that America so desperately needs.…
Rather, Trump’s America is a counter-revolution in waiting. We know what has preceded it: the neo-Marxist march against Western civilisation whose gross dilation finds form in state-sanctified minority supremacy and the political correctness that sustains it. But no one knows what might proceed from a Trump presidency except a counter-revolution against P C Left culture by the progressive dismantling of its government agencies, the media, the activist judiciary and universities…
Neither Trump nor Clinton augurs the restoration of American greatness. But Trump is brash and arrogant enough to lead a counter-revolution on the premise of American exceptionalism. The brutal lesson of Trump’s ascendancy is that to battle the philistines, sometimes you have to act like one.[Emphasis added.]
The term ‘political correctness’ or P C has in truth become abused and debased. People of a reactionary cast of thought claim that their freedom of speech is imperilled by exponents of political correctness. Commentators in The Australian pepper their pieces with this complaint tirelessly. In the gibberish of Jennifer Oriel, it is a machine-gunned cliché that rat-tat-tats with the same ghastly monotony as ‘sovereignty’, ‘free speech’, ‘free thinkers’, ‘elitism’, ‘populism’, ‘activism’, ‘systemic political bias’ (from The Australian!), ‘draining the swamp’, ‘identity politics’, ‘sovereign borders’, ‘open border activists’, ‘pride in Western culture’, and ‘fundamental Western values’. (Those last two are black-shirt Dutton sinister – so much for the East!) Here is a simple example:
The P C left can smear us with false accusations of racism and we have no recourse to action under the RDA.
(As Lenin asked, who are ‘we’?)
Here is another sample:
The restive public is leaning towards political figures who oppose the P C establishment’s open border lunacy, its intemperate approach to channelling public funds into the activist class in the media, academe and non—government organisations, and its censorship of politically incorrect speech.
In that piece, the author used the word ‘sovereign’ or ‘sovereignty’ on nine occasions. I wonder what that word meant on any of them. This is transcendental bullshit.
Jennifer Oriel is a keen student of ideological terms. In a piece in today’s Australian she says that the emergence of what she calls ‘the new Right’ means that we have to define conservatism. ‘The task of definition is urgent. Unless a well-defined, muscular conservatism emerges, the best of Western civilisation will not survive the 21st century.’ Goodness, gracious me – well, we won’t be here for the grand exit or Armageddon.
Ms Oriel says the following.
The Conservative Mind sparked the post-war conservative intellectual movement in America. In it, Kirk provides a definition of conservatism that comprises four substantive doctrines. The first conservative doctrine, “an affirmation of the moral nature of society”, rests on the belief that virtue is the essence of true happiness. The matter of virtue is family piety and public honour. Their consequence is a life of dignity and order.
Kirk’s second doctrine of conservatism is the defence of property. He defines it as “property in the form of homes and pensions and corporate rights and private enterprises; strict surveillance of the leviathan business and the leviathan union”.
The third conservative doctrine is the preservation of liberty, traditional private rights and the division of power. The absence of this doctrine facilitates the rise of Rousseau’s “general will”, made manifest in the totalitarian state.
The final doctrine of Kirk’s conservatism is “national humility”. Here, Kirk defines the nation state as vital to the preservation of Western civilisation. Politicians are urged to humble themselves in the light of the Western tradition instead of indulging in cheap egoism by promoting policies that buy them votes, but weaken the West.
English philosopher Roger Scruton identifies the political, pre-political and civil components of Western civilisation that sustain the free world. They are rooted in the uniquely Western idea of citizenship, which is influenced by Christianity. The core components of Western citizenship are: the secular democratic state, secular and universal law, and a single culture cohered by territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty. Like Huntington, Scruton analyses the core foundations and animating principles of Western civilisation in contrast to Islamic civilisation.
Conservatism stands in contrast to both small “l” liberal and socialist ideas of culture, society and state. Its central tenets are: moral virtue as the path to happiness, supporting the natural family, promoting public order and honour, private enterprise, political liberty, the secular state and universal law. The central tenets of conservatism are sustained by a single culture of citizenship that enables the flourishing of Western civilisational values.
Conservatism remains the only mainstream political tendency whose core objective is the defence and flourishing of Western civilisation. In its federal platform, the Liberal Party defines its liberal philosophy as: “A set of democratic values based upon … the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of all people as individuals.” There is no discussion of Western civilisation or Western values. However, it shares with conservatives the principles of limited government, respect for private property, political liberty and the division of power. And conservative prime ministers from Menzies to Howard and Abbott have led the defence of Western civilisation in Australia against its greatest enemies: socialists, communists and Islamists.
It is on the questions of immigration, transnational trade and supranational governance that the primary distinction between conservatives and the new Right is drawn. For example, there is growing tension fuelled by the belief that mass immigration, especially of Muslims, constitutes a demographic revolution that threatens Western values. Mainstream conservatives, including Cory Bernardi, reject the idea of a ban on Muslim immigration. But it is clear that policy resonates with many…..[Emphasis added.]…….
That leaves opposition to socialism and Islamists or Islamic civilisation. As to socialism, I’m not sure what that means, partly for the reason I have given above, and partly because the word is hardly used now in Australia. Is there anyone left who claims to be a socialist? As to the second enemy of the West, I object to what Ms Oriel says on three grounds – it is wrong to discriminate against people on the ground of faith; it is wrong to brand whole peoples or nations because of the actions of a few; and if Islamists are a threat to us, I don’t think it promotes our security to brand or discriminate against all Muslims. As Macaulay said of the Elizabethan persecution of the Puritans in England:
Persecution produced its natural effects. It found them a sect: it made them a faction. To their hatred of the Church was now added their hatred of the Crown. The two sentiments were intermingled; and each embittered the other.
Whatever else ‘virtue’ might mean, it doesn’t mean looking down on people just because they have a different faith – especially when so many people have no faith at all.
So, I am afraid that it is bullshit as usual for Ms Oriel.
I have referred before to the gibberish of Jennifer Oriel. This morning’s instalment shows the fineness of the line between inanity and insanity. It includes the following.
We stand at a pivotal historical moment. In just over a week, we will learn whether the new-right movement resurrected by Brexit and Trump is going global. The looming Dutch election is a bellwether. It is the first European election of 2017 featuring a pro-Western nationalist party vying for the popular vote. Locally, the West Australian election next weekend will test whether Hanson’s One Nation will extend significant influence beyond Queensland.
If The Netherlands’ Party for Freedom (PVV) wins, its leader Geert Wilders will become the most strident pro-Western prime minister in Europe. The Trump effect will translate into a transatlantic phenomenon. Either way, the third reckoning of new-right rhetoric with political reality is nigh.
The leaders of the new-right movement differ on some policy matters, but share a set of values that are cohering into an international program for action. Their shared political aims are to: restore the primacy of Western civilisation by defending sovereign democracy and the nation-state system of allied free-world countries against the supranational left. New-right politicians give greater emphasis to the national interest than centrist-left and right parties by prioritising debt reduction via secure borders and rational immigration programs. Some claim that protectionism is co-essential to prosperity, but the claim is substantially weakened by the lack of systematic evidence. Far better is the shared goal to resurrect Western culture by battling the economically and socially corrosive PC culture that dominates the activist media, academia, NGO and public sectors. All new-right parties are gearing up to drain the swamp.
Wilders has been called the Dutch Donald Trump, but he preceded Trump’s ascendancy by several years. His European allies include Hungary’s Viktor Orban, who dubbed 2017 the year of rebellion. In 2015, Wilders said to Agence France-Presse: ‘The only way to deal with (the immigration crisis) is to regain our national sovereignty and close our national borders … I am asking that our government close its doors as Hungary did.’
The year 2016 ushered in a Western renaissance led by Britons and Americans. Brexit represented a triumph of self-determination over supranational governance as Britons renewed their faith in liberal democracy by voting to leave the EU. More than 60 million Americans chose Donald Trump as President to restore American primacy by fortifying the foundations of the free world laid down in the Declaration of Independence and the US constitution.
The supranational left is working overtime to prevent Trump’s ideas developing into a coherent international program for Western civilisational renewal championed by a right avant-garde. The right is gaining ground in the war for by reminding centrist parties Western values matter and turning the weapons used by neo-Marxists and Islamists to attack the free world order against them. ……
The foundational thesis of the 21st-century left is Orwellian doublethink. Codified inequality that promotes minority supremacy through affirmative action law is rebranded equality. The systemic censorship of conservative thought is called free speech. Consistent with its neo-Marxist creed, the modern left suppresses the silent Western majority; punishes politically incorrect thought; undermines the free world by weakening the nation-state system and vilifying Western patriots; purges conservatives from publicly funded institutions; and imposes punitive taxes on wealth creators and hard workers to fatten the parasite class.
The new right is a counter-revolution whose seeds were sown in the 1970s, the decade neo-Marxism took root within the West. As Roger Kimball wrote in The Long March, the new left’s method of gradualism meant ‘working against the established institutions while working in them’.
By almost destroying the liberal in liberal democracy, the left has prepared the ground for totalitarian politics. But it didn’t see the new right coming, whose members hail from both left and right united by the fight for the West. The new right has come to take our civilisation back. [Emphasis added.]
Orwell would not have believed this. Western civilisation championed by Trump, Wilders, Orban, Farage, and Hanson? Would you let any of them into your home? Here is the moral and intellectual emptiness of what shamefully passes for our conservative press – the Lone Ranger on steroids of dyslexic paranoia.
Some in The Australian ranted themselves to new depths. …..
Australian painter, cartoonist and avantgarde freethinker Bill Leak died of a suspected heart attack. He was 61 years old.
In the two years before his death, jihadists and the political establishment inflicted horrific stress on him because he refused to surrender his creative genius and free mind to the colourless, artless overlords of political correctness.
In 2015, Leak was forced to flee into a safe house with his family after jihadists threatened to kill him. His thought crime was drawing a cartoon of Mohammed in the wake of militant Islamists slaughtering cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.
In 2016, Leak was accused under the PC censors’ favourite weapon, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, for offending someone somewhere.
Members of a state-protected minority chose to take offence at a cartoon……..
The suggestion is, apparently, that Leak died from the stress inflicted on him. He is, we will be told, a martyr.
Even by the standards of Rupert Murdoch, it is beneath contempt for him use the death of an employee to pursue a tawdry political objective that will make it easier for the surviving employees to offend and insult others because of their race.
What Oriel and the paper refuse to mention about the cartoon that said that aboriginal fathers were drunks who could not remember their children’s names is the following. That cartoon was grossly offensive to a large number of white people and almost all aboriginal people. Nevertheless, the legislation complained gave Leak a sound answer to any complaint at law. (There is my view no answer in decency.) At all times he had the backing of the Murdoch press and the best and most expensive lawyers in the land – as had his mate, Andrew Bolt. He was never charged or even sued.
Are we, then, seriously to believe Leak’s whimpering about stress? If we are, the answer during his life would have been simple. If you don’t like the heat, don’t go near the bloody kitchen. If you want to hand out coat-hangers, stand by for at least a comeback. And this is in the context of a cartoon demonizing blackfellas in order to take the heat off complaints of crimes against humanity perpetrated by white people in the Northern Territory. Leak put in what NRL thugs call a cheap shot. ‘Don’t worry about what we whites do to black kids. Look at what their piss-pot fathers do to them to land them in our care.’
This truly was disgraceful behaviour by an agent of the Australian press.
But the whole campaign of Murdoch and his shrill, whining minions has set a new low in Australian bullshit. There is a daily unloading of bullshit about hate speech, the flat earth (climate change), and the ecclesiastical rejection of gay marriage by cloistered churchy men who just refuse to grow up. They stand for the forces of funded reaction that hold back the Liberal Party and the whole nation. They’re now terrified by the thought of a vote on gay marriage. Who would ever trust a democrat? They should all be deeply ashamed of themselves.
And so should the Prime Minister be ashamed of himself for publicly attending their ghastly Gotterdammerung. I did not vote for him so that he could hobnob with people who want him to cede to them the right to beat up on blackfellas and Muslims.
The fix is in. Queer activists will use fear of sharia to create a moral panic about freedom of religion. Suddenly laissez-faire liberals have developed a distaste for pluralism. They claim that codifying freedom of religion will result in sharia. They fail to comprehend fundamental freedoms in context.
In the context of Western culture, religious freedom is anathema to political Islam. The best guarantee against sharia is Eurocentricity: a cultural agenda that comprises secure borders, the legal protection of fundamental freedoms, and education on the Christian foundations of Western civilisation……
Much concern about sharia in respect of the religious freedom review is artificial. It’s a beat up to prevent dissenters from queer ideology enjoying reasonable protections from militant activists……
One would expect the Ruddock review not to recommend sharia as a model of religious freedom. In the Western context, religious freedom has a particular meaning rooted in Christian scripture that supports the secular state, free will and forgiveness.
Christian religious freedom empowers the secular state. It also embodies a limited state according to Christ’s instruction: ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s’ (Matthew 22:21). By contrast, much of the Islamic world is theocratic.
One of the more potent examples of the difference between religious freedom in the Christian and Islamic traditions is their comparative tolerance for it. While Christ exhorts people to come to God and issues numerous warnings to those who turn away from Him, free will is permitted and sin is forgiven. In the Koran, Muslims are taught that non-Muslims are evil and enemies. Muslims are instructed not to ‘seek the friendship of the infidels’. Jews and Christians are considered abominable.
People often assume that the 21st century jihad against America and Israel is a consequence of colonialism or interventionist foreign policy. But hatred of Christians and Jews is rooted in the Koran…..The Western conception of religious freedom incorporates pluralism. In its most basic form, pluralism is tolerance for diverse beliefs limited by the principle of no harm. A historical benefit of the Christian scriptural belief in limited state authority is that it removes the state’s incentive to monopolise religion. As such, it empowers the flourishing of diverse faiths. Consequently, violent monotheism is fundamentally incompatible with the modern West. Yet the Koran prescribes it……
Freedom of religion is not possible where that freedom is singular. Nor is the Western conception of religious freedom possible where individual liberty, including the freedom to exercise religious belief, is subjected to state control…..
The legalisation of same-sex marriage has created an unintended consequence of potentially widening the scope for state interference in personal faith matters. Australia has some of the weakest protections for religious freedom in the free world while international precedent demonstrates the use of lawfare against Christians is becoming something of a blood sport…..
Australia’s approach to religious freedom should reflect the best of the Western tradition. We believe in free will. We believe in the secular state. We believe in the inherent worth of each and every individual. We want a future where freedom of religion can animate the soul of the free world. Neither militant atheism nor hardline Islamism will light the way to liberty.
Well, there you are. Queer or militant activists have put the fix in to use fear of Islam to suggest that some people may fear Christianity – and so stand in the way of religious freedom. How this relates to the ‘21st century jihad against America and Israel’ is not explained. Nor for that matter is religious freedom explained. Israel Folau is legally free to express his religious opinion that gay people are doomed to burn in eternal flames. What more freedom does he need?
The contention underlying this seamless rant appears to be that while we can tolerate ‘extreme’ or ‘hardline’ views in Christianity, whatever those terms may mean, we should not do so for Islam. This apparently follows from the role of Christianity in western civilisation. So much for pluralism. And as to theocratic states that favour one religion over another, how does Israel shape up? In fact, how do we shape up when our head of state has to be in communion with the Church of England?
And as for parts of scripture that are on the nose, the bible is shot through with endorsements of ethnic cleansing. That God did after all choose one people over others. It is sufficient to refer to Deuteronomy 20:16, Joshua 1:1-9, 6:17-25; and 8:24-30. For that matter, Genesis 3 has not done much for women in western civilisation. Or men.
Ms Oriel has at least two things in common with Donald Trump. She is pursued by demons – in her case, political correctness and jihadis; in Trump’s case, the deep state and witch-hunters – and moderation is not her go. She and Trump exemplify the extremism and fantasy of our time.