He's muttering about (I presume) defamation against Fairfax for Elizabeth Farrelly's recent column comparing him to Enoch Powell, and he's recently complained about The Australian's Paul Kelly and Chip Le Grand's concern about him, over the same issue.
Today he's defending Pauline Hanson against Chris Mitchell (!).
Gee, at some point, maybe Bolt will realise the problem is his complete alignment with the dog whistle (is that the right term when it's actually direct shouting and fearmongering?) politics of Hanson?
And further: what is this complete entanglement with the IPA for the hyping of his book (containing just old columns) all about? I presume his son still works there, and I presume Roskam and Sinclair Davidson still consider him a "mate", but is that enough to tie the IPA so closely into promoting someone who has gone so Hanson right wing on immigration? Isn't Davidson embarrassed by his blog entries? Why does he say nothing? Why is Bolt himself seemingly so desperate to promote the book?
I find this all rather weird.
2 comments:
there is nothing remotely free market about Bolt's writings.
I concur with Soony.
The IPA has never had the intellectual rigour the CIS used to for examnple.
Post a Comment