The Most Thorough Screening

Australians occasionally wonder how thorough the screening processes of various governmental agencies and departments are; here are a few recent transcripts released by concerned insiders viâ Lippiweaks.

A recent examination at the Border Control area of a major Australian airport:

Junior Border Control Officer: Have you any dangerous or illicit items to declare.
Recently Arrived Non-Citizen: No.
Junior Border Control Officer: I shall ask a second time. Have you any dangerous or illicit items to declare.
Recently Arrived Non-Citizen: No.
Junior Border Control Officer: I shall ask you yet again. Have you any dangerous or illicit items to declare?
Recently Arrived Non-Citizen: Well, yes, I have some explosives and opiates—oh, I mean, No. Damn! You got me bang to rights.
Senior Border Control Officer (to the visiting Minister): Ha! The third question gets them every time.
Minister for Immigration: What would happen had he said “No”.
Senior Border Control Officer: No one can answer thrice falsely. If someone say “No” for a third time we immediately allow them entry, of course.
Minister for Immigration: Of course. Rightio. Carry on.

A recent interrogation at the border control station near a minor Australian seaport:

Junior Immigration Officer: Are you a real refugee, one fleeing genuine persecution?
Unlawful Non-Citizen: Umm. Not really.
Junior Immigration Officer: Look, if you want to enter this country under our refugee programme you need to say “Yes”. Now, I’ll ask you again. Are you a real refugee, fleeing from persecution?
Unlawful Non-Citizen: No.
Junior Immigration Officer: Let’s try this another way. I’ll ask a question and you just say “Yes” to anything I ask, right?
Unlawful Non-Citizen: Yes?
Junior Immigration Officer: That’s the way. Well done. Okay. Are you a real refugee, fleeing genuine persecution, and entering this country without any seditious or terrorist intent, just wanting to enjoy our free way of life including generous welfare payments and the like? Say “Yes”.
Unlawful Non-Citizen: Well, I do have plans to—
Junior Immigration Officer: The correct answer is “Yes”.
Unlawful Non-Citizen: Yes.
Junior Immigration Officer: Welcome to Australia. Here is your free cell ’phone. Oh, you already have one. Never mind, here’s another. Here are your brochures and vouchers. Just head to that door marked “Completely Vetted Refugees”. Bye!

A recent hearing at the Parole Board of a large Australian prison:

Parole Officer: I see that you have been convicted of conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack, murder of witnesses, kidnapping, rape, sedition and arson, that you have served only six months of a six-year sentence, and that you still have to face trial on other serious charges once the public prosecutor finally collates all the evidence against you and your accomplices. If you are released on parole will you promise to be of good behaviour?
Convicted Terrorist: I shall, of course, behead all those who insult the Prophet (PBuH) and generally smite all unbelievers, which I consider to be fairly good behaviour—
Parole Officer: Just say “Yes”.
Convicted Terrorist: Yes, you filthy pig.
Parole Officer: Good. Here are you papers. Off you go.

Effective Fatwas

A few rulings from scholars will soon put an end to terrorism, surely.

In an apartment, somewhere in the West:

Mahmud Mahummed: Okay, our vests are primed, our guns are loaded, our knives are sharpened, and the van is fully fuelled; let’s go out and slaughter some infidels for the glory of Allah.
Mahommad Mahmoud: Wait, wait; I’ve just read a ruling from some scholars which affirms that “suicide attacks, armed insurgency against a state, and use of force in the name of imposing Shariah” is forbidden.
Mahmud Mahummed: Yeah? Who are these clowns when they’re home?
Mahommad Mahmoud: Thirty-one noted scholars at a seminar at the International Islamic University in Islamabad.
Mahmud Mahummed: And does our own Iman endorse this so-called ruling?
Mahommad Mahmoud: Not so much.
Mahmud Mahummed: And does anyone in our community ever pay any attention to the International Islamic University in Islamabad?
Mahommad Mahmoud: Not that I can recall.
Mahmud Mahommed: Right. Well, I guess we’ll stay home today and watch the… Wait, why should we not go out and slaughter immodestly dressed infidels and thereby deliver ourselves straight to a rather nifty paradise?
Mahommad Mahmoud: It seems our terror group does not belong to the true Muslim faith.
Mahmud Mahummed: What moron asserts that?
Mahommad Mahmoud: Umm, some infidel on Facebook.
Mahmud Mahommed: Uh huh.
Mahommad Mahmoud: You don’t think we should heed infidels on Facebook?
Mahmud Mahummed: Now, what do you reckon? Perhaps you’d prefer that the interpretation of the holy scriptures come not from your own constant reading thereof, or from the wise lessons of our learned Imams, but from some emasculated atheist who is too scared to arm himself and announces that we should all co-exist. Perhaps you’d rather just spend an entire lifetime doing really good deeds in the vague hope that you might somehow work your way into a slightly inferior paradise instead of immediately entering the paradise for martyrs. Perhaps you like the idea of a world ruled by infidels yelling that people may dress and dance and drink as they please and that the true religion is just like their own effete, incoherent set of contradictory beliefs which consists mainly of saying only nice things about everyone and giving every runner in every race a participation certificate instead of rewarding the actual winners. Perhaps you’d rather we just sauntered down to the local pub dressed like infidels and have a few pints, instead of doing Allah’s mighty work, eh? Perhaps you reckon it’s perfectly fine to sit back with a few cold ones whilst young girls and sodomites freely dance to the so-called music of a young celebrity cavorting like a semi-naked, devil-worshipping whore. Perhaps—
Mahommad Mahmoud: Yeah, yeah, I get it. Nonetheless, I do think we should stay home and be nice to our godless neighbours.
Mahmud Mahummed: All right then.

As in the Blitz!

In the wake of yet another attack (which had nothing to do with Islam, obviously, by a deluded lone wolf), some people (the same folk, for the most part, who blether of tolerance and the pressing need not to blame our Mahometan neighbours who are, as ever, the real victims here) urge Britons to carry on as normal—as in the Blitz!—in order to defy evil terrorists.  Of course, though Londoners, for example, did do their best to live their lives as normally as possible during World War II they did so whilst their military forces were actually fighting the Axis powers by, say, constantly bombing the enemy.

Things would be very different if the politicians of today had been in power during WWII:

BBC announcer: Here is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, speaking from the smoking ruins of the Palace of Westminster.
Prime Minister: Good evening. I speak to you tonight, grief-stricken by the horrid events of this day. As you are probably aware, waves of aeroplanes of the Luftwaffe, Nazi Germany’s airforce, again dropped thousands of bombs over south-east England today, many over the great city of London, and many hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians are dead and many, many more are grievously injured.  There has been great destruction of property, including damage to our most beloved buildings of outstanding cultural worth.
But we cannot allow loss of life and heritage—which is just part and parcel with living in a modern city, really—to fill our minds with hate.  Not all Germans are Nazis, and not all Nazis are evil.  Furthermore, National Socialism is a great political ideology, with many peaceful adherents, and a long and rich history.   Nazism has absolutely nought to do with war or terrorism.  Many (or, at least, some) Nazis, according to reliable surveys, are quite moderate and are not entirely supportive of the total abolition of democracy, the brutal repression of “non-Aryan” peoples, and the pitiless extermination of Jews.
We ought to send only good wishes to our enemies, as we send our thoughts and prayers to those in sorrow, and we must let Nazi Germany know that we shall welcome them all, with loving, open arms, not with force of arms, whenever they choose to visit our rich and hospitable, borderless land.  We shall welcome the Nazis on the beaches, we shall welcome them on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, we shall welcome them in the hills; we shall never surrender to hate.  The way to stop conflict is to refuse to participate in conflict!  We must shew the good people of Germany, in word and deed, that we shall not stoop to similar acts of destruction and intolerance.  Instead, let us send messages of peace and good will to the ordinary people of Germany whilst shewing those who attacked us that they cannot triumph over us.
We will live our lives as if Herr Hitler and his arrogant but wrong-headed cohort of intolerant National Socialists had not declared war on peaceful democracies and completely subjugated the citizenry of France and Poland and several other countries which few have heard of.  We will keep our streets well lit, we will impose no curfew, we will continue to work and play as if nothing untoward occurred and, in short, we will bravely carry on as usual.
It won’t be long before the leadership of Nazi Germany realises that diversity beats uniformity, open-hearted liberalism overcomes narrow-minded provincialism, tolerance defeats intolerance, and love vanquishes hate and no one ever achieved anything with violence.
Good night from what was, once, the House of Commons and the home of representative government.

UPDATE I:  see “‘Dangerous Woman’ Meets Dangerous Man” by Mark Steyn:

“Carrying on exactly as before”, as The Independent advises, will not be possible.  A few months ago, I was in Toulouse, where Jewish life has vanished from public visibility and is conducted only behind the prison-like walls of a fortress schoolhouse and a centralised synagogue that requires 24/7 protection by French soldiers; I went to Amsterdam, which is markedly less gay than it used to be; I walked through Molenbeek after dark, where unaccompanied women dare not go.  You can carry on, you can stagger on, but life is not exactly as it was before.  Inch by inch, it’s smaller and more constrained.  […]
All of us have gotten things wrong since 9/11.  But few of us have gotten things as disastrously wrong as May and Merkel and Hollande and an entire generation of European political leaders who insist that remorseless incremental Islamisation is both unstoppable and manageable.  It is neither—and, for the sake of the dead of last night’s carnage and for those of the next one, it is necessary to face that honestly. Theresa May’s statement in Downing Street is said by my old friends at The Spectator to be “defiant”, but what she is defying is not terrorism but reality.  So too for all the exhausted accessories of defiance chic:  candles, teddy bears, hashtags, the pitiful passive rote gestures that acknowledge atrocity without addressing it—like the Eloi in H G Wells’ Time Machine, too evolved to resist the Morlocks.

On the supposed inutility of violence, see Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein (New York, 1959), Chapter II:

One girl told [the teacher of History and Moral Philosophy] bluntly:  “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?”  Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly.  “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that.  Why doesn’t your mother tell them so?  Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before—since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up.  She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me!  Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seemed to be unaware of it,” he said grimly.  “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea—a practice I shall always follow.  Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it.  The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.  Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.  Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”

UPDATE II (25 May):  Mark Steyn writes a sequel to his article quoted supra:

My thoughts yesterday did not meet with universal agreement.  Linda Cianchetti emails:

The killer was the queen of England’s clan.
Rothschild Soros club.
Stop zionist Israel jews from manufacturing all this illusion. They are the banking cartel around the world. Stop blaming everyone but the culprits, themselves. Or we will have no respect for journalists and the tales they put out.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.
I get a lot more of this than I used to.  I suspect Ms Cianchetti would blame “zionist Israel jews” and “the queen of England’s clan” whatever happened, but it’s a close call whether she’s any more detached from reality than, say, Newsweek fretting about “reprisals” against Muslims or the nincompoop diversicrat who serves as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester sternly warning that we must not “tolerate hate”—by which he means not the hate of people who shred little girls’ bodies with nail bombs but the mean-spirited Tweets of people who get angry at the people who shred little girls’ bodies with nail bombs
The Official Lies are getting more ludicrous, and (with respect to the investigation of Fleet Street columnists for entirely innocuous observations) dangerous and totalitarian.  One further danger of the Official Lies is that their obvious fraudulence bolsters the confidence of Ms Cianchetti and the similarly inclined in their derangements.

UPDATE III (25 May):  see “After Manchester: It’s Time for Anger” by Brendan O’Neill:

As part of the post-terror narrative, our emotions are closely policed. Some emotions are celebrated, others demonised. Empathy—good. Grief—good. Sharing your sadness online—great. But hatred? Anger? Fury? These are bad. They are inferior forms of feeling, apparently, and must be discouraged. Because if we green-light anger about terrorism, then people will launch pogroms against Muslims, they say, or even attack Sikhs or the local Hindu-owned cornershop, because that’s how stupid and hateful we apparently are. But there is a strong justification for hate right now. Certainly for anger. For rage, in fact. […]
The post-terror cultivation of passivity speaks to a profound crisis of—and fear of—the active citizen. It diminishes us as citizens to reduce us to hashtaggers and candle-holders in the wake of serious, disorientating acts of violence against our society. It decommissions the hard thinking and deep feeling citizens ought to pursue after terror attacks. Indeed, in some ways this official post-terror narrative is the unwitting cousin of the terror attack itself.  […]That the post-terror narrative is fundamentally about taming our passion and politics is clear from its sidelining of all issues of substance. We are actively warned against asking difficult questions about 21st-century society and why it has this violence in it, this nihilism in it. Question the wisdom of multiculturalism, of refusing to elevate one culture over another and instead encouraging people to live in their own cultural bubbles, and you’re racist. Wonder [whether] the obsession with combatting ‘Islamophobia’ might have given rise to a situation where some Muslims, especially younger ones, cannot handle ridicule of their religion, and… well, you’re ‘Islamophobic’. As for immigration:  this is the great unmentionable; you’re a fascist even for thinking about it. The post-terror narrative that barks ‘You must empathise!’ also says, implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, ‘You mustn’t think! […]
It is wrong to have core values in a society built on diversity, apparently, and we mustn’t ever suggest that any particular ideology poses a threat to those values, because that might involve ‘punching down’, singling people out, etc. We end up with a unity of shallow feeling, a union of highly individuated mourners, not a unity around real ideals and things and vision. Their cry of unity is a lie. The fact is there are people in our society willing to attack us, others who will think those attacks are justified, and others still who will apologise for those attacks by saying they’re a product of ‘Islamophobia’ or Western intervention overseas.  […]
Stop and think about how strange it is, how perverse it is, that more than 20 of our citizens have been butchered and we are basically saying: ‘Everyone calm down. Love is the answer.’ Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you.  You are dead already.

The Easy Way to Stop Troubles: Ignore Them

Facebook is full of people repeating such silliness as this:

“Everyone is worried about stopping terrorism.  Well, there’s a really easy way:  Stop participating in it.”

—Noam Chomsky

How wise and true! Here’s what will surely happen:- 

In a back street of a large, major city a jihadist grabs a passing stranger, Joe, and holds a scimitar to his throat.


Jihadist:  Die, crusading bastard!


Joe:  Hey, stop! I’m not involved.


Jihadist (holding his scimitar away from Joe’s throat but still holding Joe in a strong grip):  What?


Joe:  Your struggle has nought to do with me.  I don’t participate in terrorism.  I believe in live-and-let-live and, to the extent that I have any awareness of the issues, I support your freedom to follow your religion in any way which seems best to you for I am a man of cultured reason and tolerance.  I have “an audacious confidence in the fundamental goodness of others”, including your good self.*


Jihadist:  You’re not a tool of the oppressive, imperialist crusader dogs?


Joe:  No, not I.  I am the very definition of a non-participant.


Jihadist:  Wait, I don’t kill you?


Joe: If it’s no trouble.


Jihadist (releasing Joe):  Oh, well, sorry to have bothered you.  I’ll go grab another victim to behead then.


Joe:  Nice chatting with you.  Good luck with your endeavours. See ya.


Jihadist:  Thanks.  Bye.

*  the words from “I am” to “self”, featuring a quote from the ABC’s jihadist-loving Jonathan Green, were suggested by a poster, Rabz, at Catallaxy Files.

Remember, you too can gain an underserved reputation for wisdom simply by voicing similarly quotable admonitions; for example, try “There’s a really easy way to stop x: stop participating in it”, wherein x = “murder”, “rape”, “burglaries”, “the heat-death of the universe”, “poverty”, “rough, dry elbows” or “superhero sequels”.

A New Protector of Marriage

In “Gay marriage advocates must now protect marriage as I’ve tried” Andrew Bolt claims:

The battle for same-sex marriage has been won.  Now the winners must defend marriage as fiercely as we conservatives tried.

And their first test comes now.  Before they get our politicians to take the final step and change the Marriage Act, they must help to maximise the good — and minimise the damage.  […]

Moreover, the Yes vote in Catholic Ireland last week broke the back of any real resistance here, too.

We can, no doubt, expect to hear discussions, in defence of marriage, like this very soon: 

Bi-bloke:  Hey, Gay-chap, old friend, you were allowed to marry your boyfriend for two reasons according to you:  “love” and “equality”.  Well, I want to marry both my boyfriend and my girlfriend for the same two reasons:  “love” and “equality”. 
Gay-chap:  Nah, but you could just live together and call yourself whatever you like.
 
Bi-bloke: Isn’t that what people said to you? 
Gay-chap: That was different.  My man and I wanted a big, fancy wedding, with all our friends and family there to witness our eternal commitment to each other, and lots of wedding presents, and lots of flowers.
  We also had a big cake.  Admittedly, we had to sue the baker because, though he made and decorated a lovely cake to our exact specifications, he didn’t enthusiastically support our marriage, the bastard.  We did get a nice out-of-court settlement.  Anyhow, cake, flowers, presents, and friends and family! 
Bi-bloke: We want a big fancy wedding too, with all our friends and family.
Gay-chap:  You can still have a ceremony—just without State sanction.

Bi-bloke: But we want State sanction; we want what you got. 
Gay-chap:  Well, you can’t.
 
Bi-bloke:  Why the hell not?
 
Gay-chap:  Because marriage can only be between two unrelated, adult human beings, to the exclusion of all others.
 
Bi-bloke:  Yeah?  Says who?
 
Gay-chap:  I do.
Bi-bloke:  See, I want to be able to say that.  Tee hee.  Seriously, what’s the basis for this old-fashioned, bigoted and narrow notion that marriage must be between only two people?
Gay-chap:  Tradition, and, and, and that’s just the way it is.
Bi-bloke:  Isn’t that what opponents of your same-sex marriage said?
Gay-chap:  There is no similarity and, anyway, it’s the Law.  And it’s different.  Because, well, because.  So there.  You can shut up now. 
Bi-bloke:  Now, look—
Gay-chap:  Homophobe!  Racist! 
Bi-bloke:  But—

Gay-chap:  Fascist!  Hater!  Misogynist!
 
Bi-bloke:  Hey, steady on, I’m not the one who won’t touch women—
Gay-chap:  Police!  Help, Police!  I’m being oppressed by an opponent of same-sex marriage!
Constable Sonja:  Is, uh, there, uh, a, a, oooh, is there a, uh, problem?  Sorry, I, ooh, just had to, uh, jog nearly seven, oooh, yards then, uh, in full rig.
  So, uh, wot’s goin’ on here, then?
Bi-bloke:  I give up.

Gay-chap:  Yay!  I have successfully defended marriage!  I’m a hero!

St. Patrick’s Embarrassment

Ireland, March, 2015,
a pub with the usual Irish decorations…
Declan:  Ah, Paddy, you seem glum; what’s upset you, lad?
Patrick:  Oh, Declan, I can’t enjoy my usual six or seven pints of Guinness tonight because I’ve heard in passing that the Australian PM might have implied, or at least said something that could be so interpreted, that many Irishmen are hard drinkers or, at least, that they enjoy a drink now and then.  Or that they might.  Or something.  It’s a vile and bigoted defamation,  I don’t mind telling you. 

Declan:  That is a perturbation, Paddy. So would you care to have another ball o’ malt? 

Patrick:  Well, just one more, then, to console myself, but I’m sure that I shan’t enjoy another whiskey with an e tonight (though I shall doubtless drink a few), and I’ll be having no more than four pints of Guinness, I’m that flustered and solely grieved. 

Declan:  Curse that evil Tony Abbott!

How did this sad situation come to be?  We must look at the historical record:-

Australia, March, 2009,
a pub decorated, it seems, with an assumption that the Republic of Ireland encompasses the entire island, and ignoring Ulster…
Dave:  Did you hear what Kevin Rudd said, Gazza? 

Garry:  No, Davo, what did he say? 
Dave:  He began by saying, and I quote, “it is customary on St. Patrick’s Day for politicians to lay claim to their Irish ancestry, however tenuously.  To wax lyrical on the bonds of history that tie Australia—and in fact one in ten Australians who come from Erin’s shore—with Ireland itself and to so kiss the blarney stone on a night such as tonight that in fact we see fact itself form a seamless bond with folklore and fiction—so that by night’s end, courtesy of a Guinness or two, you’ll all be believed that in fact you are led by a lady called Anna O’Bligh and that her opponent is Liam Patrick O’Springborg.
“Such is the power of Guinness.”

Garry:  Ah, what an orator!  He has a touch of the real Irish in him! 

March, 2012,

a pub with the usual “Irish” decorations…

Dave:  Hey, Gaz, you hear what Julia Gillard said? 

Garry:  No, Davo, what did she day? 
Dave:  She said, and I quote,

“Could you have a larrikin without Irish emigration?  The answer is no.
“And if we’re more English than we like to admit—well, we’re not nearly as Irish as we would like to be.
“This year I took the opportunity to make the Federal Cabinet just that little bit more Irish.
“I already had that fine Sydney Irishman Tony Burke, a grand representative for all the Irishmen who’ve been in the great south land for a century or more.
“But this time, I thought two was better than one, and if I could get one who came out here on a boat “himself, all the better. […]
“Patrick O’Farrell reminds us of the United Irishman Joseph Holt—a true political prisoner—sent here after 1798 and who found himself farming near Sydney, and he said in 1803:   ‘My usual time to commence to sow crops was the first Monday after St. Patrick’s Day, it requiring a few days to get the men sober’.”

Garry:  Ha!  What a wit!  She has a touch of the real Irish about her! 

March, 2015,

a pub with the usual “Irish” decorations…

Dave:  Gaz, you won’t believe what our retarded PM said! 
Garry:  Oh, Davo, what was Tony Abbott’s latest gaffe? 
Dave:  The creep ended his foul St. Patrick’s Day speech with a feculent slur; he apologised because, and I quote, “I can’t be there to share a Guinness or two or maybe even three”.  He thereby unjustly and slanderously suggested that all the Irish are drunks and rascals. 
Garry:  Wow, what an embarrassment to our country that illiterate bastard is!

UPDATE (19 March):  see Andrew Bolt’s “If That’s a Gaffe, I’m from Ireland”:

How deranged have the Tony Abbott haters become?

Sydney’s Lansdowne Club of Irish Australian businessmen had invited people to come “enjoy a Guinness or three” at its annual St Patrick’s Day lunch.

Abbott couldn’t make it, but sent a video in which he said this was “a great day for ... everyone who cares to come to a party”.  He was sorry “I can’t be there to share a Guinness or two or maybe even three”.

See anything offensive there?

Yet a ninemsn report claimed immediately Abbott’s speech had “backfired” by focusing on “stereotypes around drinking”, with “Irish business leaders” calling it “patronising”.  In fact, the “business leaders” was one person, unnamed.

Why the exaggeration?

But that was all the media Left needed for yet another pile-on.

“Abbott’s cringe-tacular St Patrick’s Day video”, crowed one Sydney Morning Herald headline.

“The rise and rise of Tony Abbott as an international laughing stock,” gloated another […].

The ABC news grimly reported the offence Abbott had allegedly caused before finishing its TV news with its own St Patrick’s Day tribute—with shots of, yes, Irishmen drinking Guinness.

But here’s the full measure of these hypocrites. Abbott is hanged for merely saying he’d like “a Guinness or two or maybe even three”.  Yet not one journalist attacked the Labor prime ministers [Rudd and Gillard] who actually accused the Irish of being drunks.

Two Heartening Exhortations

On Facebook, and on other “social media”, people often post, repost and re-repost all sorts of encouraging axioms and other droll examples of wisdom; here are two recent examples:

How wise!  Consider, then, a consequent situation: 

In a grimy, urban garage in a large, formerly well-developed but increasingly decrepit city, a masked youth approaches a mechanic, lounging against a wall covered in painted and printed slogans. 

Masked Man:  I’m a friend of Mad Mo.  I hear you have some AK-47s you might be able to sell me, and ammunition, and stuff.

Mechanic:  Uh-huh.

Masked Man:  I could do with some guns and ammo, see, because right now there’s a convention of Jewish oil-men in a hotel in town—one owned by Jews, by the way—and I’d like, y’know, to shoot them.

Mechanic:  Are you sure you want to do that?  Would that be a wise or good thing to do?

Masked Man:  What are you?  A critic?  The world has plenty of critics already.  You should be an encourager.  Look, you have a poster saying so.

Mechanic:  True.  Sorry.  Right, I encourage you to run through all that again; how might I help you?

Masked Man:  If you have the power to make someone happy, you should do it.  The world needs more of that.  It would make me happy to kill quite a few Jews, and did I mention that it’s a convention of gay Jews?  It is.  Very gay and very Jewish.  And they’re climate-deniers.  Making profits from fossil-fuels, y’know.

Mechanic:  All right, I’ll grab you a couple of AKs and a back-pack of ammo.

Masked Man:  It would make me very happy indeed if you would arm me to the teeth at a considerable discount.

Mechanic:  Well, if it will make you happy.  Would you be happy if I threw in armour-piercing rounds and a reloadable RPG with a sixpack?

Masked Man:  Very happy indeed. 

Mechanic:  All right then, will do.

If Other Experts Were as Qualified as “Climate-Change Scientists”

On the ABC’s “QandA” an awarmist, scamming cretin, Bahareh Sarah Howard*, asked Sen. Cory Bernardi a stupid question:

Senator Bernardi, last week you said it was “good news” that the Federal budget had abolished the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and that the government was “still committed to abolishing the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation”.  As a researcher in climate change and renewable energy, I presume that when your car mechanic, your dentist, or your plumber tells you there is something wrong with your car, your teeth, or your pipes, you listen and act.  Why is it that you ignore the advice of climate change experts, from every corner of this planet who are urging us that climate is changing and we must act to reduce CO₂ emissions now?  Australia is per capita the largest emitter in the world.†

The silly cultist and aspiring hierophant fails to recognise that, currently, car mechanics, dentists and plumbers don’t duplicitously predicate their remedies on a scamming, self-serving, pseudo-scientific conjecture.  We may, however, imagine what a wonderful world it would be if tradesmen, medical specialists and various other experts were as qualified and as proficient as she and her fellow hoaxers:–

Visiting the new-age car mechanic:

Mechanic:  How may I help you?
Customer:  My car just needs a tune-up, I think.


Mechanic: Ho! So you think you’re the expert, eh?


Customer: No, I just—
Mechanic: We’re the experts here; now, your car obviously needs a new, non-polluting electric engine and, of course, a nice new, non-polluting, heavy battery will just fit into your boot very snugly.


Customer: How much will that cost? And where am I going to put the family’s luggage when we go on holiday if you put a great big battery—which is surely not as non-polluting as you say—in the boot?
Mechanic: First, apart from a few charges, imposts, dues, tariffs and levies, and a series of weekly payments, the engine is completely free—


Customer: Free?


Mechanic: Courtesy of the taxpayer, through the engine-change levy and the renewable energy subsidisation tax; and, as for holidays, you ought to know by now that going on holidays is very bad for the planet, so don’t.


Customer: But I can see from all the photos around this garage that you regularly fly overseas for—


Mechanic: That’s different.
Customer: How?


Mechanic: It just is.


Customer: Well, I don’t want to insult you or anything but are you a qualified tradesman?
Mechanic: Of course; I have an associate diploma in automotive studies from the Australian Climate Institute.


Customer: Right, well, I think I’ll drive away and have the car fixed later. You see, it wasn’t anything urgent—


Mechanic: Too late, under provisions of the engine-change legislation I’ve had to seize your vehicle and we’ve already started replacing your old, wicked, fossil-fuel engine.  Trust me, I’m a automotive-change expert.

Visiting the new-age dentist: 

Dentist: Before we begin, just sign these consent forms here, here and here.  Good, well done.  Now, what seems to be your problem? 
Customer:  My upper left premolar smarts, and I think it could do with a filling.  All my other teeth, thank heavens, are fine.

 
Dentist:  Ah, yes, they must be removed.

 
Customer:  They? 
Dentist:  Yes, all of them. 
Customer:  Don’t you need to take an X-ray or something first? 
Dentist:  No, modern dental-change science is beyond nasty, ancient and dangerous techniques now.  I’ll just ring the nurse and she’ll take you and your forms to the dental-change facility.

 
Customer:  Hell, what did I just sign?

 
Dentist:  This is permission to hold you in detention for six months on an anascorbic diet; that one’s garnisheeing your wages for the next fifty years; and that one’s subscribing to a monthly recipe service for nutritious vegetable smoothies.

 
Customer:  Hey, what?  What, what’s an anascorbic diet when it’s home?

 
Dentist:  Well, we remove Vitamin C from your diet so that you develop a therapeutic form of scurvy, which allows all your diseased teeth to fall out naturally and relatively painlessly.  Then, if you recover, you’ll enjoy for the rest of your days slurping nutritious vegetable smoothies or soups without ever having to chew like a beast of the field ever again.

 
Customer:  What about false teeth?  What if I want to eat a steak?

 
Dentist:  All teeth (97% of dental-change scientists agree) are bad for the planet, and so is eating meat:  it’s murder. 
Customer:  Look, are you a qualified dentist? 
Dentist:  Of course; I have an Bachelor of Arts in Dental Studies from Swinburne. 
Customer:  Who were your teachers there? 
Dentist:  An accountant, an archæologist and a career politician.

 
Customer:  Look, I think I want a second opinion. 
Dentist:  Too late.  The science is settled and, anyway, you’ve signed all the forms already.  Bye.  Take him away, nurse.  Next!

 A visit from the new-age plumber: 

Plumber:  Here I am at last. 

Customer:  Good, there seems to be a leaking pipe somewhere, because our garage has been flooded for the last couple of—

 

Plumber:  Wait, I’m the plumbing-change expert; I tell you what’s wrong. 

Customer:  Plumbing-change expert?  So you’re not an actual plumber with a trade certificate? 

Plumber:  Ah, far better than than that, I have a masters degree—in the media’s acceptance of global plumbing change.

 

Customer:  So you’ve studied the history of plumbing rather than learn how to mend broken pipes and such? 

Plumber:  Who said anything about history?  We studied models at the Institute for Plumbing Change!


Customer:  Okay, so how will you mend my pipes?

Plumber:  Mend them?  I’ll get a team of young migrants to pop by in a few weeks and they’ll tear out all the current plumbing and install new stuff.

 

Customer: Why? 

Plumber: Well, just looking at this sink here I can tell you that it has to go. 

Customer:  Why? 

Plumber:  It’s made of stainless steel, you fool!  Do you know how wicked it is to source the components of a stainless steel sink?  My god, man, it even has carbon in it! 

Customer:  I should have thought you’d support a carbon sink.  No?  Anyway, you’ll replace it with ceramic or plastic—

 

Plumber:  Ceramic? Plastic? What are you, a lobbyist for the evil mining or fossil-fuel industries?  Wood, man; the sinks, basins, pipes, sewers and all the rest must be replaced by ethically-sourced, sustainably-harvested wood products.

 

Customer:  Wooden products?  How will they last?  Stainless steel is used precisely because it doesn’t corrode, and the same goes for plastic pipes; what will stop the wood rotting? 

Plumber:  Since you’re so bloody well-educated, can’t you think of anything else which doesn’t corrode? 

Customer:  Don’t tell me that wooden pipes will be gold-plated? 

Plumber:  Ethically-sourced, of course.  Look, trust me:  I’m a plumbing change expert.

*  who intends to “develop scenarios to determine carbon dioxide emissions involved in the transition to a 100 per cent renewable energy sector in Australia and the world”, whose “passion is in social and environmental entrepreneurship, which has the potential to have a broader, multidisciplinary positive impact on the global level.”  Ah, yes, researchers no longer have boring old interests or specialities but, being so unscientific, irrational, eager and fervid, they have passions.
†  a lie:  see “Australia the Highest Emitter of Carbon Dioxide?” at Impact of Climate Change.

UPDATE:  see also by “Dean, King, Krauss and Bernardi on Q and A” by Matt Hayden.