I’m talking about Q and A Australia which probably follows the same format as Q and A NZ. The agenda is controlled by the left, the audience is selected by the left, the presenters are strongly allied with the left, and the panel is always stacked against the right. A rigged format that usually makes whatever the right wants look stupid, and the left look like paragons of moral and social virtue. In other words, its crap. Socialist propaganda that no intelligent person would normally bother with. Unless one wanted to get an idea of just how depraved the left are in terms of controlling and manipulating the political discourse.
I watch it occasionally for the above reason. Usually after someone has pointed out some reason to observe yet another example of how the left have degraded the ABC and our popular culture since they have captured it.
Last Monday the show’s presenters made a major error. They allowed a sensible articulate critic of the currently ascendant left to appear. He stole the show. No matter the bitter and hating attacks of the jack booted leftists on the panel, and the staged applause of their braindead apparatchiks in the audience, Brendan O’Neill killed them.
Watching his demolition of the left, the gross socialist thug Human Services Minister Tanya Plibersek and the bleating pseudo liberal Stephen Mayne, (founder of the Crikey website) warmed the cockles of my heart.
But here’s the kick readers. Brendan O’Neill is a lefty. The difference is that he’s one of those rare lefties who are educated. I mean really educated. Not processed through the socialist indoctrination centres that gave rise to the the ignorant left that you see flooding the comments section of blogs like Public Address and The Standard and Red Alert and Kwipolitico and so many others. These people all have the same traits that identify them as the smug ignorant knuckle dragging products of an education system totally converted to a left wing sausage factory. So blind to alternative viewpoints they think their extreme left condition is “normal”, or default.
They’re the same dull half educated socialist rabble that make up the Q and A audience, that ask most of the questions and that sit on the panel. The hate filled Tanya Pliberserk being a standout example. They all failed to see the point of O’Neill’s argument, mainly that the criticisms and strategies they were advocating right now, to control and stifle debate and public discourse, could, if legislated, be used against them in the future.
Some of O’Neills comments are below and there’s more over the fold. You can read them and see how they stand out compared to the thug utterances of Pliberserk and the rest of the painful leftist lamers on the show. Whoever at the ABC allowed this guy a platform should be studying their employment contract very closely.
You can also watch the whole show, or read the transcript here. Well worth the time.
The Norway shootings-
“the left-leaning commentators and liberal commentators have hijacked this tragedy. They’ve really tried to milk this massacre to try and present right-wing writers as the cause of all violence and horror in the world and you have a situation now where effectively liberal commentators have embraced media effects theory – the idea that certain word and certain images give rise to violence in the real world and there’s a real censorious impulse behind that ideological hijacking of the Norway massacre, where effectively what these people are saying is that if we have too much heated commentary, particularly from the right, people will die. You know, if Andrew Bolt continues publishing articles, people will die.”
“in Europe at the moment there is a swathe of commentary saying that unless we calm down public debate – effectively unless we censor certain people or implore them to speak more calmly and to put their views to one side then there will be more massacres. That does matter and, in fact, the police in Germany are talking about looking at the internet, who goes onto the internet, how free we should be to publish stuff on the internet. There are consequences of the liberal exploitation of this event. The consequences are likely to be less press freedom and more restrictions.”
“He didn’t attack another race of people. He attacked his own people but he was obviously driven by cultural paranoia, by insanity, by various different things. But the problem is that to say that there is a direct link between right-wing commentators who say “I hate Muslims” or “I hate immigration” or whatever cranky stuff they come out with, and this guy, who then goes out to kill people – to draw a link between those two things is effectively to say that words kill. And as far as I’m concerned, the only people who say that words kill are censorious people – people who want to clamp down on debate, people who want to restrict what we can say.”
“I believe in something called free will. I think people should take responsibility for their own actions and you are – you are letting Breivik off the hook by saying that other people are to blame for invading his mind.”
“The implication of these argument are extraordinary because what you’re effectively saying is that journalists should be restricted in what they should say and the tone in which they can say it and the public are so stupid and gullible that if there is a Daily Mail article which is shrill and outrageous, they’ll go and get a gun and kill loads of people.”
On the News of The World “scandal”
Well, I’m not here to defend Rupert Murdoch. He’s big and ugly enough to defend himself and, you know, no one would defend what happened at the News of the World. I have heard no one defend that. It was outrageous, some of the journalistic – so-called journalistic practices that they undertook. But what’s happened as a result of this is a motley crew of people are attaching themselves to this scandal. A motley crew of authoritarians and celebrity chancers and people who have always disliked the so called Murdoch empire.
“A rather motley crew of people have attached themselves to the scandal for the purpose of bringing down the Murdoch empire, which they’ve always hated. Politicians hate it because it’s exposed their private life.”
“why is Hugh Grant the leading campaigner against Rupert Murdoch? I mean, I wonder why? It might be something to do with something that happened in 1995?”
“I am worried about the consequences of this for the press more broadly which is – in Britain, in particular, we now have an inquiry into press ethics and press behaviour where, for the first time in 400 years, the Government is pretty much going to say what kind of tone the press can take, what kind of things they can investigate, what kind of things they can say. If anyone doesn’t recognise that as a massive historic leap backwards for freedom of the press then they need to have their heads cleaned out. I am worried about the consequences. Everyone is indulging in so much joy over the fact that Murdoch is suffering this terrible embarrassment. They’re not stepping back to think what will the consequences be for freedom of the press and freedom of speech and for press diversity, ironically?”
On Gillard’s carbon tax
“lots of the public don’t like this kind of thing and what the impression I get as an outsider is that Gillard is trying to find a mission. She doesn’t really have a political vision or anything to go for and she’s taking up a war on carbon, in the same way that her counterpart in Britain, Ed Miliband, has taken up a war on Murdoch. There is a lot of similarities between these two things. You declare war on something that everyone thinks is evil and polluting and dangerous and then everyone goes “Yay”.
“But the thing is that lots of public – you know, the fact is climate change is just not top of their agenda. Top of their agenda is jobs and housing and whether they can afford to pay for the things that they need. They are not that concerned about climate change. It’s not the top thing. The thing about climate change for someone like Gillard, because she can present it as this kind of end of world thing, you know the whole planet’s going to burn if we don’t do something about it, she can actually override public concern and the democes discomfort with this kind of policies and just say, well, I’m doing it for the good of future generations so you lot don’t matter that much.”
“If you don’t support our policies, we will die and starve and the Barrier reef will disappear? It’s the politics of fear.”
On teaching ethics in schools-
“I think there’s a real double standard in Australia at the moment, because you have on one hand, lots of liberal commentators saying “Kick religious instructors out of school,” and on the other hand “Keep the ethics teachers in.” There’s a great similarity between those two groups of people. I think ethics largely should be left to parents and family and community. Schools should teach maths and English and actual knowledge.”