This whole drama is ridiculous

So points out Shane Warne and there are four other examples of narrative this morning below that.

Narrative 1

Shane Warne joined other men of note [so far no females in the public sphere, who are on the whole narrative-driven, that is feminists].

For those not up to speed, football fans at every AFL club [downunder] have been, for the whole season, booing a provocative aboriginal activist who plays the race card and drops into the “eternal victim” pose at the sound of a boo.

This player is Adam Goodes, actually a champion player of the game apart from his always staging for free kicks [the equivalent of diving in football] and the darling of The Hegemony [Australian of the Year Award etc. for his work to end prejudice against aborigines, conveniently ignoring other demographics].

Warne and others have had enough of it:

shane warne adam goodes

It’s interesting observing the demographic of those who reject the race narrative, the race card – people like Warne, former football champs, Andrew Bolt and others.

The ones coming out saying this whole thing is ridiculous are what people would describe as “real men”, the “red blooded” type, men’s men, the type who call a spade a spade, doers who prefer their deeds to do the talking.

It’s also interesting to observe the demographic of those for whom any booing must, by definition, be racist, any criticism of feminism must, by definition, be misogynist.  Need I label that demographic?

Geelong FC has just been given £43m for their new stadium downunder, courtesy the AFL and the govt.

Their coach, to his shame, held a regular press conference, which was extended to take in the issue of Goodes, which has nothing to do with the team, given that this coach always refuses to buy into extra-club matters.

But this time he did and he bought in big.  He opened with: “We have to be careful not to dictate to supporters how they should think,” then proceeded to do just that, oblivious to the hypocrisy.

He concluded with – so, two weekends from now [when they play Goodes’s team], anyone who boos is automatically a bigot.  They might not have been before but after it has blown up, to boo now means you’re a bigot.

You can check out his press conference at the club’s website [parts 1 and 2].

In other words, because Goodes went crying to The Man, now the arguments against him, the real ones must, by definition, be negated and come to nothing.

I don’t know which annoys me more – the falsehoods, the false premises in their arguments, the illogicality or the way The Man dictates how people should view issues.

In that article on Warne’s comments, it was not left like that. Before it got onto Warne, they had an interview on vid with a narrative pusher from Goodes’s club.

They had also carefully shut off comments. No way was the single best argument against this Racism narrative going to be allowed to be put.

And that argument was – if those fans really were “Racist”, why then do they not boo other aboriginal players, why only Goodes?

The Geelong coach gets around that by saying, “The matter is complicated but nevertheless …”

As someone pointed out at one football forum [where freedom to speak had not been denied], all this does, this tyranny of the slight majority – 55/45 – is to drive the 45% underground, seething. It in no way carries the day and convinces those 45%.

And that is a universal issue about the disenfranchised.

Narrative 2

At three separate online news sites, there were articles or ads about business and management. In every one, there was a picture of a woman at a desk with a pencil in her hand or leading a meeting or similar. Young, pretty, in charge.

I need explain this no further.

Similarly, wherever there were pictures of university placements or exam results, it was either only pretty girls shown or else there was a token male to the side or behind.

To take this blatant narrative to task immediately invokes the buzzword “misogynist”.  Nothing to do with the dishonesty – couldn’t be that, could it?

Narrative 3

There was an article by a young female journo, a feminist, asking why racists always try to deny it.

WTF?  What sort of a priori argument is that?

Narrative 4

There was an article about manipulation, how one spouse manipulates the other.

Before saying what you know I’m going to say, what do men have a reputation for in fallings out in relationships?  Domestic violence, no?  Despite stats showing female domestic violence is every bit as prevalent – hence the image of the wife with the rolling pin, the plates thrown at the hubby etc. etc.

And women?  Manipulation of course, plus nagging.

This pic had a woman in the foreground, head in her hands and a manipulative male in the background, manipulating away at her.

It’s only a pic but it’s a lying pic. Men certainly manipulate but the overwhelming issue they manipulate over is to get more sex.  Women manipulate the whole time, for many reasons, to gain their way on a variety of issues.  They are adepts at it from girlhood and can run rings around a man.

And I’ve already said – men do too. But it’s this constant choice of picture, only ever one way, which is where the dishonesty is and which grates.

Narrative 5

There was a cartoon depicting Cameron and others all clinging on to the back of the Euro train, going into the tunnel.  Naturally I didn’t download it and now can’t find it but on the side of the train was a sign reading [roughly]: “All aboard the migrant bandwagon.”

Interesting. “Bandwagon” was the key word I recall.  Thus, if you oppose the “migrants” coming to Britain [read “illegals”], then you are “jumping on a bandwagon”.

Now someone at that news service commissioned that cartoon.  The angle was carefully chosen to negate the concern across the nation.

Narrative 6

There was an article by one of these journos asking what turns someone into a conspiracy theorist?  WTF? Um, how about the lies the govt and media tell us for a start, love?

And of course, it’s as if the population have mental issues for not being quite chuffed about the lies.

On the other hand, they run, quite near that, the story about the tattooed man who says Lee Rigby’s death was a hoax and of course, side by side with that, the conspiracy theorist pseudo-medical article.

Thus, all denial and all hoax-calling must be, to them, a mental illness.  Blanket rule, no exceptions.

That’s dangerous because even if it plays on your natural feeling that the Rigby murder was that, which is my position, that does not mean that all anomalous situations are mental illness.  The key word here is anomalies and there sure were in the Rigby case.  The photos they chose to put in the news never covered the salient facts.  The whole story was “as given”, as syndicated.

As I say, I don’t claim hoax in the Rigby case but I do point out anomalies of exactly the same type in all the recent major outrages, with single nutter on victim, that get all the press and are followed with legislation in parliament or assembly.

The key issue here is not just the assault on freedom of speech but the way people are manipulated away from killer arguments or glaring anomalies and how people with no axe to grind in a matter happily accept the facts as presented by the MSM, as if they were Wiki entries.