Wednesday, 19 December 2018

English Everyman versus (((David Aaronovitch))) and Consensus Groupthink Audience (BBC 'Question Time')

This superb comment by the poster ''Orpheus'' was recently drawn to my attention along with the suggestion that it become a main post, and I certainly agree.

The post is an analysis of an infamous exchange between a homeless Englishman and a Jewish Marxist/journalist, David Aaronovitch. I recommend the reader first watch the exchange before reading the analysis.

Pam Dumbleton: "Isn't it time the government listened to the people about the effects immigration is having in changing our communities? "(modest clapping.)

Dimbleby: Just in what way do you think the government isn't listening?

Pam Dumbleton: "The government aven't got a clue. David Cameron 'as never been to Barkin'. If 'e came there's be warned in advance 'an everythin' will be brushed up. The government need to come and walk through our town and just see how we now live. Go back twelve years it was totally different, Now we are the complete minority there and it's just like the most terrible place to live on earth at the moment. "

(shocked oooh's from the audience, hesitant clapping.)

If we examine the 'set-up' or arranged context of this interview we may be able to see how the BBC load the dice against anyone who does not conform to the 'liberal/progressive'/Globalist Neo-Con agenda of mass, uncontrolled immigration.

Firstly, the audience, the panel and those chosen to ask questions are hand-picked by the producers of the show. They are in the position of producer and casting director in a 'play.' In short, before a word has been spoken, they get to set the parameters of acceptability of the direction of the play. They know beforehand what the intended 'outcome' of the play will be in terms of its 'meaning cache.' That is how it will effect thoughts and feeling, attitudes and dispositions of the wider audience watching at home. This is a highly controlled environment where the set parameters will not be breached.

In this particular case the woman chosen to ask the question is from what appears to be a lower working class strata. Her accent is as might be expected strong cockney and her grammar is rather poor. This is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, but it may be reasonable to assume that the watching audience will pick up on this 'level' of social strata unconsciously which 'denotes' or designates 'low intelligence' in this particular context.

The 'producer' of this social reality play, could have chosen to have in the audience someone with a sociology degree or someone capable of 'denoting' 'high cache' intelligence. He did not choose such. There was a reason for that. The reason being that we unconsciously confer greater credibility upon an 'intelligent actor' than an 'unintelligent actor.'

In stark comparison to this, the panel is composed of the 'good and the virtuous' whose 'intelligence cache' appears to be on a higher 'social strata.'

In short then the bias is immediately placed with the panel as the 'experts' in comparison to the low educated lay-people chosen to ask questions, who are the 'non experts.'

Note the body language of the panel as the question is asked. There is an almost visceral silent groan and perhaps a sense of embarrassment that another one of those 'obnoxious racists' is having to be dealt with yet again. The camera deliberately focuses upon the pained and uncomfortable expressions of the panel. The subject of immigration and race is taboo. It is the truth that dare not be spoken in 'polite society'.

Amanda Plattel is the first asked to comment by Dimbleby.

[ Amanda Jane Platell is an Australian journalist. Between 1999 and 2001 she was the press secretary to William Hague, the then leader of the British Conservative Party.]
You can get a taste of her style of journalism here:

The first thing she does is define herself as an immigrant. She is Australian. The essence of her commentary is that she has benefited greatly from being allowed to make Britain her home, but that the immigrants who are now arriving have a far greater sense of entitlement than those who came and worked hard in the past to fit into British culture.

Her bullet points: 30% drop in the native, indigenous population and a 200% increase in immigration in Barking.

"I never came here expecting to get a house....send child benefit back home, use the welfare system, I always thought it was a privilege to be here. And I do not understand when we see the kind of social tensions we have here with schools which are just overflowing've got more children of school age in this area per proportion of population than anywhere else in the country

(cue the exasperated look of Labour's Stella Creasy with a thousand yard stare denoting 'unacceptance' of the objective truth.) and that is because you have lots of people coming in, many of whom want to work really hard and want to contribute but the government is not taking any account of the pressure it puts. "

She represents a semblance of impartiality but she does not even begin to question the fundamental assumptions of mass uncontrolled immigration. Indeed by defining herself primarily as an 'immigrant; she falls neatly into both camps. However, she is not an accurate representation of mass immigration which is the deceitful argument the play-producers wish to impress into the mind of the wider audience. She is in effect an example of just how great immigration can be.

She is a useful sop. A prop. A bone that is thrown to the part of the audience in order to eventually mislead and misrepresent the real question asked. The most fundamental if which is why? Why do we have to accept something which we never asked for and which we never ever voted for in mass, uncontrolled immigration.

Dimbleby interjects: "Well how should it do that?"

Platell: "David Cameron suggested a ban so that if someone was coming in they would have to work for three months and pay tax before we're able to use benefits. Look I was here for eighteen years. I would say make it a bigger barrier, make people contribute"

During this commentary there are ongoing interjections from the white man in the audience (I don't believe he was introduced) who asserts that as a result of mass immigration he himself as a white, native, indigenous Britain is effectively discriminated against be not being able to get a job, by inference, as a result of immigrants being able to work for less pay. He is unable even to be housed whilst all around him he sees immigrants receiving hand-outs and benefits which effectively place them on a higher tier of importance than the native population.

He is not able to express himself as articulately on this subject as his 'more credible' 'panel experts' as once again he has been specifically chosen by the 'producers' and 'editors' and 'stage directors' of the play in order to misrepresent those who are against mass uncontrolled immigration, as low educated, angry white people, whose underlying motivation stems from only and specifically from'racism.'

When he makes his point about positive discrimination 'for them,' insofar as immigrants are 'given money' he is immediately dispossessed of agency by the hand-picked audience who in accordance with their chosen status as Non Playing Characters (NPC's) who collectively know when to boo and when to hurrah undermine his argument through a form of collective intimidation. This is the voice of the mob. This is the controlled environment in which this apparently 'open debate' occurs. There is no open debate. It is a fa├žade.

No matter how much objective truth he states, 'I have applied for over 100 jobs on the railway, 100 jobs. I don't even get an interview no more. In the old days I used to get a letter. I used to get a rejection letter, 100 jobs, but these immigrants they get all their tickets paid for, they get all their jobs".
(Audience boo and harass.)
"I am homeless, I have got nowhere to live. I have to go down today and see an immigrant, an immigrant telling me (cue black faces in the audience to denote his 'racist remarks'.) an immigrant telling me that I....
(audience continue to harass)
well that is the truth he says, that is the truth. I went down to John Smith house today and an immigrant tells me that I cannot live here, I cannot get nowhere to live."

( Hissing, booing and laughing accompany his explanation of his life.)

These hissers, booers and laughers have not arrived indiscriminately into this audience. They have been deliberately placed there by the puppet masters who have arranged this charade of 'free and open debate.' They may not have been given open and explicit instructions to do this. (or they may have) but a political decision will have been made to choose members of the audience who can be relied upon to react in this way to these comments.

In short, the entire superstructure of the interview, or panel is a set-up intended to frame anyone who has a non-Globalist outlook as a racist.
Note his demeanour. He is angry. He is white. He is lower working class. He is of a 'low intelligence' cache. He is a 'racist.' He is framed as such.

David Dimbleby: "Alright. David Aaronovitch"

So we have now been exposed to two 'low intelligence cache' questioners and the 'learned expert' on the panel, a journalist with The Times, is now invited to reply to the last commentary.

Remember, as an 'expert' his 'credibility cache' is unconsciously believed or perceived to be higher than the 'working class' 'low intelligence cache.' This intelligence comparator need not have been such, since a member of the audience with a Phd in Social Sciences and anthropology could have been invited into the audience. They weren't, for a reason.

Aaronovitch (DA): "So, you're blaming the wrong people"

(interjection from white man in audience: "I am not blaming anyone, I am just stating the facts of the case.")

D.A. " No, no, you're stating a perception of the facts of the case"

White man: "No, for me personally and for many people like me "

Although his comments are very perceptive and factual he is already fighting against social stigma directed towards his 'low cache' intelligence and low 'social strata' as defined by a multitude of factors.

DA : "I know, but just because you perceive something doesn't make it true."
David Aaronovitch is using a form of intellectual sophistry here to undermine and negate the truthful commentary of the white man.

It may be true to say that 'just because you perceive something doesn't make it true.' it may be factually 'correct', as a generalisation. However, in this particular context of this mans life and by extension many people's lives in similar circumstances, they are not mere 'perceptions' or illusions as the word implies, but straightforward and accurate truths drawn from objective reality. ("It's true for me", the man replies.)

DA. "No, no."

White man: "ecause we've been told we're all racists, but what about the indigenous people who...."
(at this point he's making some very valid points but is once again put back into his box as it were by David Dimbleby who does not allow him to make his very valid points. In fact they are hidden behind a cacophony of noise,)

DA. "No one has so far accused anybody of being racist. BUT, the things that you said were exactly what were said about my grandparents when they came over to the Jewish East End in the early 900's. Exactly the same things. They said precisely the same things. 'We can't walk through our streets because they're not ours anymore.' Why is a street not yours because some of the faces in it are black? Why cant you be in a street that has white and black in it?"

(Rapturous applause from the carefully hand-picked Globalist audience.

He hereby equates two separate and disparate entities (ie being black and being Jewish) as having exactly the same social milieu. In fact for many reasons this is a completely false and spurious conflation, but being a Marxist and working in the grievance and victimhood spectrum, David can use this as a cudgel to beat the implied racists over the head with.

Thereby signifying through contrivance, endorsement and legitimation of the 'intelligent cache' viewpoint, over the 'unintelligent cache viewpoint.'
This is a sort of canned laughter which elicits the desired emotion from the watching viewers at home. The highly contrived, hand-picked staged audience are meant to assume the position of a representative 'microcosm' of the wider 'macrocosmic' audience in the real world. In so doing the BBC create and manufacture a form of false representation of reality. Our emotional responses are being carefully formed for us instead of formed within our own minds.

Lets go back to David Aaaronovitch's comment when he says, 'No one accused you of being racist, BUT'.....

He thereby reveals that his hidden agenda has always been to misrepresent the audience member as a 'racist.' He ignores all of the objective facts about active discrimination against the host population, the native population of British, white ethnicity, and immediately sets about misrepresenting and negating the objective facts by a simple twist of the argument towards anti-Semitism and racism.

He is now, no longer working at the rational and objective level of discourse but has opened the part of the brain which deals with feelings and not facts. You may call this the reptilian brain. Once the reptilian brain is opened, he no longer needs to deal with the very real accusations which have been forthcoming regarding active discrimination against the host community, the native British population. From now on he is working at the level of prejudice and emotion acting to boost his own faulty assumptions and arguments.

At this point he cleverly inverts the reality of the argument being put forward by the questioners, by accusing the host society of showing discrimination, anti-Semitism and by inference and implication, racism. And this man is apparently the 'high cache intelligence' in the audience. He may be 'high cache' in some respects, but he is certainly low morality in many others.

The very sad fact of life is that his fraudulent 'high cache intelligence' status acts as a form of deception which allows him to play this very slick sleight of psychological hand. He is a wordsmith magician who has effectively tricked his audience into falling into the reptilian brain functionality.

He also refers back to a period of history 900 years ago as though that were an objective corollary to todays world. That is simply a preposterous, mischievous and wholly deceptive form of reasoning. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

The context today is wholly different and for a variety for reasons cannot be compared to a period of history so far long past. We would also have to have a thorough analysis of the context of the period in order to properly evaluate his claim of active 'discrimination' against Jews at that time. We now know that there is no smoke without fire in that respect.

DA: 'Why can't a street be yours because some of the faces in it are black?'

David Dimbleby: "David he didn't mention anything about
black, he didn't mention black people"

DA: (response unintelligible.) "He's been caught out here and his body language shows it."

So in this 'argument' all that David Aaronovitch brought to the table was the reptilian scare words of 'anti-Semitism', racism by implication and by explicit reference to black people as a objective corollary of racist intent on the part of the white man in the audience.

In terms of the meaning cache, the audiences questioners are demeaned, misrepresented, re-framed through a false racist prism and effectively have had their legitimate concerns, problems and issues negated by the extremely contrived and controlled nature of this allegedly unbiased BBC 'free and open debate.' We might say they have been well and truly stuffed or well and truly Question Timed or QT'd.

No comments:

Post a Comment