Series: What is propaganda in 2017 and how…

Recently I wrote about Cambridge Analytica (CA), I’ve discovered since then that…

Attack On The ANZACs Must Be Condemned!

Hot on the heels of Yassmin Abdel-Magied and her refusal to adopt…

Drug-Safe campaigner invites local communities to get involved.

By Craig Hingston Residents in Sydney’s West are being asked to assist in…

Day to Day Politics: The Trump Report No.…

And so it has come to pass that Trump, as those with…

Yassmin Abdel-Magied

I’m not going to equivocate about this.  In my view Yassmin Abdel-Magied…

The Racist Agenda Was Made to Destroy The…

The fear of 'the others' permeates everything lately. Social media, politicians, commentators and…

Day to Day Politics: Dutton’s defenceless bullshit.

Thursday 27 April 2017 1 As if his outrageous lies of the past…

Update On Peter Dutton... And Apology From Me!

The other day, I wrote a satirical piece where I suggested that…

«
»
Facebook

Why Malcolm Roberts Is Right And How He Can Never Be Wrong!

Over the years, I’ve had some very frustrating arguments with people. I don’t always find arguments frustrating; sometimes I feel that the exchange of differing viewpoints helps everyone to grow. Sometimes I feel that I’ve learned something about the way that people with different value systems perceive the world. Sometimes, I even change my mind. So why is arguing with some people annoyingly frustrating?

I sort of intuitively knew that it was because I knew that I’d never be able to change their mind. I think that was the frustration: no matter what I said, they’d still go on telling me that I was deluded, that I hadn’t thought about the issue, that I was a victim of groupthink, that I was a left wing stooge, that I was a right wing apologist, that I was thinking like everyone else, that I was one of the few who thought like that, it was the chemicals in the water, it was the fact that I didn’t drink enough water! Whatever, they’d never feel the need to even consider the possibility that I might be right… Or at least, closer to being right than they were.

But listening to Malcolm Roberts over the past few months, it’s become even clearer to me what’s so frustrating about arguing with certain people. Now, I suspect that at times, we’re all guilty of this but Malcolm has turned into an art form. Basically, the thinking goes like this:

1. I know that X is a fact.
2. Because it’s a fact, I don’t need to prove it.
3. If you don’t believe that X is a fact, then it’s up to you to disprove it, because it’s up to the person arguing against facts to produce the evidence.
4. When you produce evidence I can ignore it because it’s clearly manufactured by people who don’t believe that X is a fact. Therefore, it can be ignored because if it comes from people who don’t believe that X is a fact, then they’re either brainwashed, part of the evil forces trying to peddle Y as a fact, or just plain stupid.
5. When I’m asked to produce evidence about X, I don’t need to because it’s clearly a fact. After all, you couldn’t produce evidence to disprove it without resorting to the lies put out by people who want to spread disinformation. You’ve clearly been brainwashed and are incapable of thinking for yourself.
6. Of course, not that I need to, but I can produce evidence in the form of anecdotes and links to various websites and there’s no need for me to worry about a conflict of interest because it’s only people who are interested who’d bother to investigate something.
7. No, no. Only people who agree with me are worth listening to, so I think that it’s time you just admitted the truth and gave up!

Now the thing about this, is that it’s impossible to fault. I’m serious. Once you replace X with almost anything, you’ll see how it works. Try vaccination! And just to be even handed, try it from the perspective of an anti-vax person, then try it from someone who believes that vaccinations are worth it. Try climate change. Try Donald Trump’s presidency…

Not that Donald Trump is president!

I mean, it’s a fact that the real powers in the USA had already appointed Hillary and, because of concerns about a possible revolt from those who wanted her jailed for her work with Russia, they created a reality show and used Trump to provide such an entertaining distraction that nobody cares about what the US is actually doing any more.
No, I don’t need to prove it. It’s a fact, I told you!
All right, can you disprove it without resorting to quoting the people behind the charade? You can? Not by resorting to the media. They’re the ones behind it, after all. Oh, no not him, either… He’s one of the architects of the whole thing. Just ask Monica about this… If you can find her… No, I don’t mean the person who’s pretending to be her… the real Monica. No, the one who was interviewed looks a whole lot older.
Look, if you don’t believe me, here’s a link to a website that was taken down by the CIA because it was too close to the truth. Come on, be reasonable, weren’t you all saying Trump could never be President, why I even remember someone telling me that they’d never allow Trump to be President and this was just to ensure that Hillary would take power. You were right and now we’re watching the “POTUS – Reality show, who’ll be fired this week?”

See, it’s easy!

So remember the simple seven point plan at the next family occasion where you have to deal with someone who tells you that they’d join Bernardi’s new party if only he’d thought to register it before he announced that he was leaving the Liberal Party. (I know that he established the name. He doesn’t have any way of allowing people to join yet… Mm, perhaps that’s his plan to ensure that he isn’t taken over by left-wingers like Turnbull, Pyne and Abbott…) Start with your fact, then just follow the plan and watch the person who normally gives you stress become the one to get all angry and frustrated…

Good luck. It’ll work – that’s a fact.

Help Support The AIMN

Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.

Regular Donation
Frequency Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.
One-off Donation
Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.


33 comments

  1. Kate Ahearne

    Thanks again, Rossleigh. I think you might have been misborn. You might have been more at home long ago in some King’s court as Jester.
    Have you considered past-life therapy?

  2. Jaquix

    Your dissection of this joker’s thought processes is scarily spot on. And thanks to Turnbull’s brilliant move to hold a double dissolution election, we are stuck with this moron as our “representative”.

  3. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    Spot on Rossleigh. Unfortunately we appear to have inherited a few of such onto our forums recently.

    The whole point of science is you can never prove it. You can only state that given the evidence the is available at the present, this is the most likely explanation, and that such is agreed to be the most logical by a decent number of one’s peers. Which is actually proof positive that Robert’s isn’t the scientist that he likes to believe he is. And why I never trust those who think in that kind of absolutist way.

  4. wam

    it is so hard to look at malc of the senate and not see the look on brian cox’s face when malc spoke on Q and A.

  5. Matters Not

    Steve Laing – makeourvoiceheard.com

    The whole point of science is you can never prove it.

    Are you suggesting that ‘science’ doesn’t give us ‘truth’ in any absolute way.? If so, then I am in complete agreement, but with a few caveats. As a way of ‘knowing’, science is far, far and above ‘faith’. Further, it’s also far superior to ‘rationality’. The strength of ‘science’ as a way of ‘knowing’ is that it is testable. And it is – again and again.

    If one is in search of ‘truth’, then rely on ‘mathematics’ and ‘logic’. But also appreciate there are underlying assumptions there as well.

  6. Neil Aitchison

    If “X” is truth (ie. an emperical fact), then the process and outcome is very valid and legitimate. You are making fun if it simply because you don’t like people getting their way – you want to control the narrative. Of course, we see the media try to turn fiction into fact all the time and so when the media try to debunk something (like you are doing here), we believe the opposite to what you say.

    Another example is “marriage equality”: Marriage has always be equally available for everyone to use within it’s legal provisions and restrictions….it’s just that homosexuals don’t like the provisions and restrictions (ie. in particular, they don’t like the restriction that marriage is “solely between a man and a woman”) and so they want to remove this restriction and add the provisions to include “same sex” couples. This is not anything to do with “equality” because the Marriage Laws have always applied equally to everyone. Same sex marriage is rather redefining marriage to include same sex couples. If you look at “marriage equality” in the way that pro-SSM people are saying it, then the word “marriage” should be allowed equally to any person/people who are “in love” with anyone/anything – in other words, your “marriage equality” should remove ALL provisions and ALL restrictions to marriage otherwise the pro-SSM people themselves are being unequal in not allowing people who are “in love” to marry their way. Of course, this is not how marriage has existed through-out history – to the contrary, marriage has always been about biological parenthood. The fact that homosexuals need to say “same sex marriage” or “marriage equality” to describe homosexuals getting married instead of just using the word “marriage” by itself proves this point – people don’t assume that homosexuals are included in “marriage” and so they have to add words “same sex” or “equality” to include homosexuals.. Adding extra words to “marriage” also adds extra implications like children being raised without a father or a mother (ie. another “stolen generation”?), sexualised grooming of our young people and extra costs on society to tackle health issues specifically related to homosexuality. Same sex couples weren’t included in the definition of marriage (applied equally to everyone) because no one (including homosexuals) assumed marriage was meant to be anything other than heterosexual. It wasn’t until very recently with the push to make homosexuality acceptable that suddenly homosexuals wanted to be “married”. There is no “marriage equality” in doing so (because marriage has ALWAYS been applied equally to everyone), nor is it a “basic right” because homosexuals cannot do heterosexual marriage – their biology won’t let them. Hence, allowing homosexuals to “marry” is simply a nice sounding way to make homosexuality look acceptable and the word “marriage” becomes a meaningless word that departs from the millennia-old concept of parenthood into a completely new concept of self-gratifying love/lust/sexual attraction…..never before in the history of mankind has the word “marriage” been used this way.

    Another example is “homosexual rights”: Freedom for black people, women’s voting rights, sexism and other non-choice circumstances are not the same as homosexual marriage because marriage is a choice and not a right – no government can legislate who you love and who you should marry.. All the legitimate rights that have been successfully achieved were not done so by redefining words to create an allusion of success. For example, If Blacks tried to achieve their right to freedom by redefining the word “freedom” to mean “white men are free but black men are still slaves to white men”, then you could say that everyone has “freedom” but in practice, nothing has changed. Likewise, if women voting rights were achieved by redefining the word “voter” to mean “men can vote but women cannot vote” then everyone becomes “voters”, but in practice, nothing has changed. So if homosexuals think that they are achieving a “right” by redefining the word “marriage” to include them, then even though they are called “married”, in practice nothing has changed because they are not doing the heterosexual marriage thing – they are still continuing to do their own homosexual thing – nothing has changed and the word “marriage” is trashed in the process. Nothing is achieved for making homosexuality acceptable to society by sabotaging the word “marriage” and changing it into whatever suits your purpose. Just how stupid do you think we all are by pushing such an emotive propaganda stunt on to us all like “homosexual rights”?….It’s a choice and it always will be. The homosexual advocates think that redefining the word marriage suddenly makes it a right for homosexuals to love each other and somehow be considered the same as heterosexuals, but all the “love, acceptability, equality and tolerance” that homosexuals want to achieve can be done without marriage involved and, in fact, the sabotage of marriage to redefine it a “sex-based” institution turns it into a completely different institution than what it has been for thousands of years (ie. a family-based institution). This sabotage of marriage is turning people away from homosexual ideologies and shows how manipulative and dishonest the homosexual activists are.

    Another example is “gender fluidity”: Gender fluidity is a psychotic myth that goes against clear-cut biology and screws up the minds and emotions of children. It is an ideology…..and ideology, like faith, is not evidence. To teach such stuff to naive and impressionable young people is child abuse. If any child is deceived into having a physical sex change or drugs administered to their bodies causing life long scars, then they are the worse off because, unfortunately they cannot reverse the damage done to them when they realise that they were duped. The damaged caused to the children being taught this delusional stuff flows on to their adult years and will require a huge expense to the public purse in health services dealing with their mixed up minds and emotions (and physical damage). Children like attention and follow peer pressure….and so when irresponsible adults who have created an allusion of authority in schools (such as “school teachers”) feed children ideas into their minds like gender fluidity, the children trust the teachers and don’t want to look like the odd-one-out, so they just do as they are told – it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy without any logic or scientific basis….it’s a political stunt that the adults are playing on our children. Just “feeling” a certain gender doesn’t change reality. The redefining of words to make the bad look good (ie. lust is now called “love”, gender is now your “feeling” that you can somehow be a different gender from your biological sex, etc)….the mixing up and redefinition of words is the casualty of this screwed up gender fluidity garbage. In regard to respect: there is no respect for people who see through all this made up gender fluidity nonsense and subsequently, we want to protect our children from Marxist elites who have sabotaged our education system to push their social engineering techniques onto our children. Respect is ignored then. The judicial activists will try to steal our children away from us if we disagree with them. No respect when that happens. WARNING: keep our children away from the government…..especially the public education system and medical centres.

  7. Rossleigh

    Neil, QED!

  8. Rossleigh

    By the way, take out the apostrophe from the “it’s” in your second paragraph – it’s incorrect.
    And if you can explain exactly what “You are making fun if it simply because you don’t like people getting their way” actually means, I’d be grateful.

    I suspect that may be why you want to keep children away from the public education system. They’ll realise that you don’t know how to punctuate or write clearly.
    Anyway, you’d clearly prefer them in a private system, because no harm could come to them when educated by Christians…

    Nasty stuff, all those lies about priests!

  9. Kate Ahearne

    Rossleigh, I’m starting to forgive myself, baby steps, for thinking that Neil was a satirist so gifted as to bring the game right up to a point so near-ish to your lofty standards. It’s just so hard to drag myself away from thinking that he must be having us on. I know I said all that worthy stuff to Harquebus a while ago, but I did take the precaution of allowing myself the right to blurt when common sense fails. Harquie knows what I mean.

  10. silkworm

    Neil is right. If we allow homosexual marriage, where will it end? Next thing you know, people will want to marry their pets, and even their robots. Won’t somebody think of the robots?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlem-0fMHg

  11. brickbob

    Yes that image of Brian Cox throwing across the evidence to Roberts and it falling on the floor is a classic.
    Good article Ross,you have the gift…………..

  12. silkworm

    “WARNING: keep our children away from the government…..especially the public education system and medical centres.”

    Yes! Yes! Yes! Funnel the kiddies into the Catholic school system where they’ll be nice and safe.

  13. Kaye Lee

    “Marriage Laws have always applied equally to everyone.”

    Tell that to the Aboriginals who were refused permission to marry, or the convicts who were only given permission to marry if they agreed to certain working conditions, or the servicemen who could not bring their Japanese wives home, or Catholics who wanted to marry outside their faith – or even the women who got sacked from their jobs as soon as they got married.

    The Church seeks to control such things purely in order to drum up their own numbers. Women are supposed to breed, then promise their children to the church. This is thinking from tribal times – more “pureblood” soldiers for our side.

    ““WARNING: keep our children away from the government…..especially the public education system and medical centres.”

    I would do everything in my power to keep people like you away from my children.

    Neil, you have some serious hangups. I feel very sorry for you.

  14. Kaye Lee

    Malcolm Robert’s twitter feed is a hoot.

    http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/crop/567x347+0+0/resize/630x386!/format/jpg/quality/85/http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/bc3ac5e64041d3aba5e38001cb86afde/204948298/rob.JPG

  15. lawrencewinder

    Well Mal-Addled Roberts certainly has a loquacious supporter in Neil… but it’s the simmering hate you sense just below the surface that worries me….

  16. Kaye Lee

    I am wondering if Neil could explain to me what “homosexual ideologies” are.

    “when irresponsible adults who have created an allusion of authority in schools (such as “school teachers”)” is another phrase I don’t quite understand. Who do you suggest we have teach our children – untrained Catholic pedophiles? People who prey on young travellers taking them off to the beach hoping they will join their cult?

    “our hospitals and health centres (places designed to improve our wellbeing) have become a battle ground for political activism that masquerades as “medical science”.”

    Woah….backing away slowly.

    Forget I asked.

  17. Greg

    the one thing I have learnt is arguing with neanderthals proves albert einstein was right on the money when he said ” Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” , The neanderthal would bang his rocks together until it produced a spark , but if you tried to show him that rubbing two sticks together can produce fire he will hit you with those same rocks . People like Malcolm Roberts are just genetic throw backs to the age of the neanderthals and like them will become extinct because of their own inability to comprehend the fundamental laws nature , it would be fun however to send him to a active volcano and then let him argue his prehistoric cave painting philosophies , the volcano will release massive amounts ash and gases into the atmosphere causing disruptive weather conditions , poisoning the plants and the wild life around it. If Malcolm Roberts can convince a singe person at the volcano that it is all a hoax and lies then I would say that person needs serious physiological help

  18. Johno

    Mr 77 votes Roberts is anti- environmentalist. Just because environmentalists want to stand up for clean air and water we are akin to to some radical force wanting to take down society, or as Cardinal Pell puts it, we are no good pagans.

  19. Rossleigh

    Yes, Kaye Lee. Given that an “allusion” is something refered to, I suspect that Neil meant “illusion” but let’s not be too critical because it must be hard to remember spelling and grammar when you’re so worked up over “homosexual rights”, which clearly has him all excited. Whatever the topic, he comments about “marriage equality:
    Start talking about coal and there he is talking about “marxist elites” pushing their agenda for “homosexual rights”. Start talking about Malcolm Roberts and he gets all excited about gender fluidity.
    Thank God, I didn’t use that photo of George Chrisensen in the singlet, holding the whip or Neil would have found it hard to keep his hands from shaking…

  20. Harquebus

    In relation to global warming, it is the physical evidence of melting glaciers and collapsing ice shelves that convinces me. The correlating increase is atmospheric CO2 is also evidence that we are the cause.

    It seems foolish to dismiss anthropogenic climate change (ACC) when, the consequences of evidence becoming proof will be devastating. I am not willing to take a chance on the ACC deniers being right just in case they are wrong which, I believe are.

    Who here want’s to abandon their motor vehicles and severely limit their electricity use? Convincing M.R. on the merits of climate change will be easier than convincing society to do without.

    “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” — Mark Twain

    Cheers.

  21. Arthur Tarry

    Mr Empirical Roberts, does he really understand anything?

  22. Kaye Lee

    When Robert’s poll on Green Energy backfired he did another poll that went along the lines of….

    What are ya! A bloody SOCIALIST or somethin’
    “Yes.”
    “…oh.”‘

    http://pedestriantv-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images%2Farticle%2F2017%2F02%2F17%2FScreen%2BShot%2B2017-02-17%2Bat%2B12.39.04%2BPM.png

  23. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    Matters Not –

    “Are you suggesting that ‘science’ doesn’t give us ‘truth’ in any absolute way.? If so, then I am in complete agreement, but with a few caveats. As a way of ‘knowing’, science is far, far and above ‘faith’. Further, it’s also far superior to ‘rationality’. The strength of ‘science’ as a way of ‘knowing’ is that it is testable. And it is – again and again.

    If one is in search of ‘truth’, then rely on ‘mathematics’ and ‘logic’. But also appreciate there are underlying assumptions there as well.”

    I am saying exactly that, and agree entirely with your points. Science is not absolutist, and it is entirely testable. And that is what makes it so powerful. Unfortunately non-scientists interpret the inability to be absolute to equal doubt, when in fact it means nothing of the sort. Its why scientists often have great difficulty discussing science with lay-people, as Richard Dawkins has discovered on far too many occasions, and why I avoid entering into discussions with absolutists as nothing will change their perspective.

  24. helvityni

    silkworm,I wonder if any man has ever married their inflatable plastic doll bed-mates….?

  25. Vikingduk

    I tried, helvityni,
    Charlotte the harlot, my gorgeous inflatable dolly were engaged tobe married,
    A visiting jack Russell put paid to that, savaging her unmercilessly.
    Oh, woe is me.

  26. helvityni

    Jack Russells are smarter than people, they know what’s ‘fake’ when see, smell or hear it…

  27. helvityni

    …oops. when they..

  28. Miriam English

    Rossleigh, this is brilliant!

    Neil, you are an idiot. You have absolutely no idea what you’re babbling on about. Marriage is a fairly recent custom in human history. For most of the time it’s existed it’s been between a man and many women, though it was also between men, and occasionally between two women (though women tend to be largely ignored by history). There are many ancient examples, even in the Bible. Very recently John Howard changed the Australian definition of marriage to only being between a man and a woman. Before that it was between two people. He did this without consultation, without any kind of Parliamentary vote or Australia-wide plebicite.

    Neil, I don’t understand why people like you want to make marriage about hate rather than love. And what is this obsession you have with gay people? You know what they say about people who obsess about gay sex all the time, don’t you? I think you’re actually gay and all this hate is your way of desperately trying to prove to others (and to yourself) that you’re not.

  29. Alan Baird

    Neil still isn’t well, he puts off taking those meds, and he puts off becoming fully literate and engages his typing fingers before engaging his brain. He makes about as much sense as Cory Bernardi/Ross Cameron on a bad day. Obsessive. Delusional. Type it to the Hard Right, Neil. They might embrace your constant allusions to homosexuals while entertaining their illusions of being the embodiment of good-ole-Australian-as-apple-pie(!)-gimme-that-ole-time-religion-tub-thumping-keep-turning-right-’til- you-go-in-circles-dammit! But ignore your typos but…

  30. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    Harq – well spotted! He is clearly someone happy to use terms like “biology” when it suits him, but then to dismiss science entirely in exactly the same manner. Glad to see he did so well at the elections. I wonder if he’s planning to join up with Bernardi? We shall watch with interest!

    And wasn’t it Quasimodo who was always offering people sanctuary?

  31. Deanna Jones

    I think Neil is confused about the difference between gender and biological sex.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: