Queensland senator Oswald Mosley has a problem. He is unelected, with support barely into double figures at the 2016 election — 17 votes, suggesting he can’t muster a score of friends and family to vote for him; he was undemocratically shoehorned into the Senate after a then-party colleague failed to do some simple paperwork, and his term runs out on June 30. He has walked out on the party on which he rode into the senate, and taken up with a party that got 1.79% of the Queensland senate vote in 2016. His political career is inevitably destined to be a political trivia night question unless he can massively boost his name recognition on the ballot paper next year.
His answer: make the media — social and mainstream — and the rest of the political class give him that boost by so outraging them they collectively turn him into a household name. Just because Mosley has moved on from One Nation, doesn’t mean he hasn’t learnt from the example of Pauline Hanson.
Thus his delivery yesterday of the most toxic and racist maiden speech since either of Hanson’s efforts, not merely attacking Muslims, non-white immigrants and immigration itself but pointedly using a phase infamous from the annals of the Nazis’ extermination of European Jewry, a phrase etched into the mind of anyone familiar with the Holocaust as one of the true extremities of evil in history. Just a coincidence, Mosley insisted, airily professing to be unaware of any special significance to “the final solution”, refusing to apologise, and complaining that he was a victim of the “thought police” — missing an opportunity to refer to the thought Gestapo.
The result was predictable — Mosley’s name trending on Twitter; media commentators queueing up to condemn him, ferocious criticisms from all sides of politics, all delivering what Mosley hungered for, publicity and profile, all helpful in increasing the chances that when Queensland voters take their ballot papers into the cardboard booth next year, they’ll recognise his name.
The uproar guarantees that Mosley will continue his tactic, conscious that he needs a radically higher profile if he’s to survive in the crowded field of the Queensland Senate ballot paper, especially against big beasts like his erstwhile colleague Hanson and whatever clutch of later-to-fall-out-with-he friends join her under the One Nation banner.
The blatant nature of Mosley’s tactic creates a dilemma. According to Labor’s usually invisible immigration shadow, Shayne Neumann, Mosley’s remarks should be condemned by all sides of politics. Indeed they should. But that condemnation gives him what he needs, the oxygen of publicity. Without that, he’ll vanish from politics on 30 June. Ditto the outrage on social media. Condemn what he says by all means, but never say his name.
Yep.
I agree entirely, and you should probably have a word to Crikey’s subs as the name in question appears in a headline a couple inches over from the headline to this article on the front page og the site….
This is exactly the problem. What he said was so obscene – Australia literally joined forces in a World War against this – it had to be called out swiftly and completely.
But I love your answer to this insanity of not giving him the benefit of all the attention. Oswald Mosley it is.
Also, now that Mosley is in KAP, I checked the QLD senate results for Katter from the last election – being a double disollution, senaters were elected on a half quota. KAP scored 0.2 of a quota with such lunimaries as James ‘Way out West’ Blundell on the ticket.
It’s going to be nigh impossible for anyone other than Labor, LibNats and One Nation to get any Qld senators elected at the next regular election. I’m tipping 3 LibNats, 2 Labor and 1 ON.
Ebony, go to Blackstone Inteligence Network and watch some of his videos. After that go to Rebekah Roth and listen to some of her Videos or better still buy her 4 book set for some brilliant reading. When your finished, ask yourself whether you really know what you know.
Senator Anning’s speech was full of low hanging fruit for peddlers of progressive outrage. His unfortunate stringing together of two words, “final” and “solution”, has also put him squarely in the sights of the right’s Israel lobby as well.
I was particularly incensed by him mentioning his belief in small government, entrepreneurship and affordable housing. How dare he suggest we live in a country where free speech and individual responsibility be at the core of our everyday lives! He can’t possibly mention the influence of Cultural Marxism in Australia over the past 50 years and get away with it, can he? Why would he want to curb the influence of China on the Australian government? Doesn’t he know China and Australia’s interest are one and the same?
What would really be great is if we had some actual journalists examine his claims – is it really true that those from the majority Muslim backgrounds aren’t net contributors to Australia, and become a burden on the welfare system? Are Muslims a race? Did he actually suggest banning anyone from coming here based on their race? Why is it taboo to have a discussion about our policy of multiculturalism? Is there any merit in having an immigration program based on integration/assimilation? Do we have a problem with abuse of the 457, student and family reunion visa systems? Is he really Nazi? Does he really want to kill Jews?
I don’t know – it would be great to have some actual facts put forward on these issues.
Instead we’ll get a Waleed Aly article in the coming days “nailing” it, accompanied by a chorus of ABC commentators pillorying a white male who must be silenced at all costs. Let’s not discuss what he ACTUALLY said – that would be too far off script and might get people thinking subversive thoughts!
“Does he really want to kill Jews?” Well who knew who Hitler wanted to kill in the twenties? Even after he consolidated power in the early thirties this extremism wasn’t apparent and even after the Nazis were defeated most Germans claimed ignorance of the presence of extermination camps. The point is, we know racist Facists have a history of this kind of extremism once they achieve power. Do you realise they are still digging up mass graves of Spanish citizens who opposed Franco’s Facist regime in the late thirties. Just read George Orwell’s account of his efforts fighting Facism with the International Brigades in his book ‘Homage to Catalonia’.
As for ‘actual journalists’ examining his claims, it is very unlikely that any journalist with integrity is going to give the Mosleys of this world the oxygen they crave. If that’s what you want then tune in to Murdoch’s buffoons and clowns ‘after dark’. Do you realise our Mosley gained only around 19 votes at the last election. How do you get attention when no one knows who you are? Yes, he is in a battle with a plethora of other right wing wannabes for the limited extremist right wing vote and fortunately most journalists aren’t playing his game.
“His unfortunate stringing together of two words, “final” and “solution”, has also put him squarely in the sights of the right’s Israel lobby as well.” This wasn’t a simple tweeted mistake. This was intentional in a speech written by one of his office workers and nine months in the making! They’re not real bright. Who will be the next Hanson fan/lover to have a spectacular fallout once they get up close and personal like David Oldfield all those years ago?
Mosley certainly won’t be the last. With Pauline, it’s always just a matter of time. Have you noticed she has distanced herself from Mosley’s comments. Even too extreme for her apparently. Or is it just a matter of ‘how dare he out Hanson me and get all the attention’. Yes, you would have to LOL if these people weren’t continually given a leg up by the (Murdoch) MSM!
Hi Howard – appreciate you taking the time to reply to my ramblings, but I do note that like many journalists that have covered this story in any way, you refuse to “give oxygen” to any of the actual issues raised in Senator Annon’s speech. Try not to discuss an idea because you find it distasteful doesn’t make it go away. Opinions are generally changed through robust discussion.
Sometimes, when ideas are suppressed and those that hold them don’t feel they can legitimately raise them in public and hold them up for scrutiny, it can give rise to more radical ways of trying to express those ideas. I don’t think anyone would want that.
I enjoy reading Crikey, but it does appear to be becoming a bit of a progressive echo chamber of late. Would be wonderful to have some views/articles some those on the right now and then.
P.S. It would seem both you and were both caught by the automatic moderating bot by mentioning a specific ethnic group in our posts. Mine was held up for about a day, and I see your first comment has only just appeared in the last few hours. What is up with that?
Racism doesn’t need or deserve discussion except perhaps in an academic institution or a psychiatric conference. Publicly it needs to be called out whenever it raises it’s ugly head.
As for robust discussion of immigration policy, you will find very robust discussion of this in Crikey when it is rational, respectful and not intended to vilify and bully minorities. You can find plenty of that in the dominant Murdoch press with the likes of Cameron, Dean, Credlin and Bolt.
The Mosley’s of this country, struggling for attention by being controversial for purely personal gain at the expense of others, is not what we want or need dominating the pages of Crikey.
As for “Opinions are generally changed through robust discussion.” I disagree. Opinions are generally changed through education, something obviously lacking in the likes of Mosley and his supporters. The fact that a defence for him is that he wasn’t aware of the significance of those two infamous words is telling!
Ah, I see. Our intellectual betters will decide what merits discussion and what doesn’t. Glad you clarified that for me. Just a tip – lest your erudite peers should think an less of you – ad hominem’s might be overlooked with the rabble I knock about with, but they’re usually a sign of a weak argument.
I’ll descend back to the great unwashed then – perhaps me ‘n me mates down at the pub can discuss the merits of multiculturalism vs integration in between ogling at the beer wenches and making racist comments about anyone lacking blue eyes and brown hair…
Howard great comments and come back. Also and may I be so rude and piggy back on your comment.
To all here, please read up on the sinister history to Schofield bible and or Project Mockingbird. Then ask yourself whether your actually hearing what someone wants you to hear or what you should hear.
Is this noise about exposing or is it designed so as to make us all look like racists as a nation. Put it this way. There was a protest in England some time ago. 500 hundred people showed up, according to the organisers the entire Jewish community was against Labour. In reality out of 300K people of the Jewish faith only a handful were of the faith the rest were Conservative party hacks while the actual people of that part of the community considered themselves English and didn’t give a hoot. There are only 500K Hanson supporters and even fewer would exist if it wasn’t for this stupid governments austerity measures. So let’s address the causes, like austerity, not the symptoms.
“Our intellectual betters will decide what merits discussion and what doesn’t. Glad you clarified that for me.”
And just who are these intellectual betters you refer to? No one else has suggested anything of the sort. Another straw argument to defend the indefensible I suspect. Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking that intelligence is a prerequisite for education. Finally, calling out racism isn’t an ad hominem but attacking someone personally for criticising racism is.
I can however understand that you would feel much more comfortable discussing the merits of multiculturalism vs integration in your small echo chamber at the pub. Maybe next time you could discuss with your mates how well your convict ancestors and their corrupt (rum corps) minders integrated with indigenous Australians after the first settlement.
“Finally, calling out racism isn’t an ad hominem but attacking someone personally for criticising racism is.”
No – but referring to Senator Anning as Mosley is – as is you last paragraph :).
The “me ‘n me mates down the pub” bit was supposed to be a little tongue in cheek, illustrating the intellectual divide between us mere mortals and those in lofty positions deciding on what is and isn’t up for discussion…I obviously failed at my poor attempt at humour.
Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, Howard. Just a shame nobody seems to engage in the issues raised.
Shouting “Racist!” from the rooftops doesn’t make it true. Cheers.
Great comment Howard
“Shouting “Racist!” from the rooftops doesn’t make it true.”
No, but calling it out in parliament in response to a racist speech isn’t shouting it from the roof tops. As they say, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck………… Therefore the Mosley analogy. Actually I don’t really think our Mosley would be offended by the comparison, if he knew who Mosley was and what he stood for.
I’m glad to hear your pub statement was an attempt at humour and will bear that in mind in future. I do agree that the issues raised need to be discussed but it is difficult to when individuals (like the senator), are pursuing personal agendas that aren’t in the interests of genuine, positive debate.
“Shouting “Racist!” from the rooftops doesn’t make it true.”
No, but calling it out in parliament in response to a racist speech isn’t shouting it from the roof tops. As they say, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck………… Therefore the Mosley analogy. Actually I don’t really think our Mosley would be offended by the comparison, if he knew who Mosley was and what he stood for.
I’m glad to hear your pub statement was an attempt at humour and will bear that in mind in future. I do agree that the issues raised need to be discussed but it is difficult to when individuals (like the senator), are pursuing personal agendas that aren’t in the interests of genuine, positive debate.
Say his name, BK, say his name! (Ah ah ah…yeah baby…ooh)…say his name, Bernie, c’arn, say his name!…you’re nearly there!!…(ah ooh…ah ooh ah…yes, yes, YES PROGRESSIVE RIGHTEOUS ECSTACY!!!!!!!!!)
*Loses straight face at last, falls to floor laughing, weeing pants, etc*
Really, Bernard. It’s embarrassing, man. If my eleven year old had such a futile tantrum I’d ban him from playing Fortnite for a month. Far be it from me to discourage the reliably-amusing antics of Crikey Prog’sm, but …seriously?! A couple of voluntarily nameless piler-ons – big kudos, Ebony McK, for at least not hiding from your misfired anger – cheering on an already-inane call that someone’s openly-declared authorial byline be vaporised out of well-to-do sight – just because their words smelt like poo nyah nyah nyah we’re dobbing? (What IS it with so many Progs & anonymity?!?) T’is, one submits with genuine respect, BK – and EM – exactly the opposite of a truly progressive response. Not to mention a speccie tactical own goal. (Nothing is more guaranteed to increase ‘his’ – tee hee – notoriety, name-recognition and vote-harvest than…the ‘mainstream meeja’ censoring his name from his own words, especially while subbing in a Godwin. (Why didn’t you go the full ‘Hitler’, BK? Lose your nerve?)
PS: Oh, and BK? Dude, don’t make a habit of this not airing people’s names just ‘coz you don’t much like what they have to say, will ya? Wendy was very, very naughty with her selective, skewing blue pencil on my live text to you on 702 yesterday, I thought…chortle…naughty, naughty, naughty Old Meeja gatekeepers, eh Bernie?…chortle, chortle, such a fun time to be a writer…though dear me, I really should get out more!…:-)
Wow! Did you forget your meds this morning JR? This is the most histrionic, non sensical rant I have ever witnessed on Crikey.
Geez, recent reader then huh Howie!? 🙂
No Jack, you’re wrong. Your post / rant adds nothing to any debate about anything other than whether you can string together a series of words that make sense. On the evidence of your contribution, it’s looking grim.
Don’t expect me to invest considered time or rational discourse in this latest ridiculously infantile, self-defeating, self-aggrandising exercise in pointless Prog posturing & outrage arms race oneupsmanship. (BTW, if you’re serious about condemning Nazi-esque rhetoric, then do it under your real full name ‘DF’. But you’re not, of course.)
The only rational response to utterly embarrassing ridiculousness is to blow a wet fart at it. BK should know better than to write overcooked tripe like this. ‘Don’t say his name’. What, you Progs are gunna send Adolph to Coventry now, are ya? Ooh…that’ll stuff him!
Really.
“The only rational response to utterly embarrassing ridiculousness is to blow a wet fart at it.” Hmm! We can assume then that you’ve just blown a wet one on yourself Jack.
Also proving again that you can string a few words together that don’t make much sense or contribute anything meaningful or positive to the debate. I suspect you’re not intelligent or perceptive enough to be embarrassed by this constant projection of your personality onto others!