This is an amazing interview with one of the best comedy writers out there. He is the writer of two UK comedy series, which are both among my personal favourites. The IT Crowd, and Father Ted. Father Ted is more, sort of folksy/provincial than The IT Crowd, which one should not watch without oxygen nearby as the danger of suffocation from uncontrollable laughter is quite real. Father Ted is kinda like an 80s CBC show, like The Beachcombers except funny. Still, it has a certain charm with 2 of the episodes being screamingly funny. Specifically Speed III and Are You Right there Father Ted?
This interview is about how he was cancelled for having a counter-revolutionary view. And you can see and hear his great intellect whirring as they ask questions like, “Why do you think this happened to you” and then more pointedly, “why did this happen to you?” Different questions but both being answered in a way that showed great insight, but insufficient knowledge.
Readers of this site will have the answers. And one of the consistent tells that the people valiantly trying to hold back the tide in this interview that we can hear, is the expression of a number of events as being ironic, when we know they are not. DEI for example, we know as a dialectical line of effort to destroy the merit principle. Failure to understand this leads to a false belief that it is an attempt to correct injustices in our system, when in fact it is a weapon against our system altogether with the added defence built in that all who oppose it are to be cancelled. Aufhaben der Kultur. This is the missing key here, or one of them.
His comparison to cancel culture with scientology is also very insightful and a worthwhile analogy, but incomplete. His off the shoulder quip about those who cancel others as being regime police was actually spot on. But the giggles afterwards make me think they don’t actually get that. If they had, they would have grown pale in the face instead of laughed.
Graham, like JK Rowling, was establishment left before he became one of the revolution’s victims. As the old joke goes, ‘A conservative is a leftist who’s been mugged’.
Even so, this is an amazingly insightful interview and an excellent look at the state of the revolution from one of its victims. I hope you all enjoy and comment.
Linehan doesn’t get it,still playing identity politics blaming it all on misogeny and unquestioning the feminist dogma.
The complainers need an unquenchable source of pos.discrimination because their unconscience Hollywood fantasy is doomed.
Moaning repeat,all there is in the unexamined identity.
Doesn’t get it? If that’s not getting it I don’t know what is. In fact he motors miles past the proverbial stop sign without tapping the brake. Maybe we watched a different interview.
Brits. Like fireflies in the blackest night. Only the “patriarchy with stilettos” gets it better, no?
My middleclass youth, downtrodden by the British expatriate university-prof fathers of my pals, was the perfect model of what these guys say. They’d bludgeon you before you could look up the words they did it with.
Victims of their own linguistic empire (English-brand dialectics) that sails on.
When they do not understand that the purpose of these measures is destruction and complain about or insinuate hypocrisy, they don’t get it.
If they think these are misbegotten attempts to seek justice for a group, they don’t get it.
If they think feminism was to right wrongs against women, they don’t get it.
And as long as they buy the synthetic motives for dialectical lines of attack, they are caught in the net and are not part of the solution no matter how opposed to the measures they are.
By way of analogy, let’s say a guy shoots you in the leg because he wants to cripple you, and you suddenly become a major voice in the opposition to guns.
Let me put it more simply.
So long as they do not recognize that the point of each of these leftist attack vectors like Feminism and trans etc. etc. has the actual purpose of achieving the effects they notice, which is destruction, and is not to save anything, make anything better, or otherwise solve a problem,
they don’t get it and can be argued to be part of the problem themselves.
Let’s take Diversity.
Diversity is a nuke, a space laser weapon which is to destroy any homogenous and functional population to destroy it.
That is all it is. And that is what it does. And the proof of it is that it is never fired at China, Africa, or anywhere they want to succeed and win at the expense of the West.
Diversity is a space laser fired at the West. Arguably at white people and Jews, in order to obliterate them.
To see it as anything else is to be caught up in the machinery it uses to destroy us.
Take a homogenous population that is relatively happy, successful and functional. Now add diversity. BOOM gone. The effects are undeniable.
Clearly they are trying to use this weapon against Japan but it isn’t working as well as hoped yet. No attempts though, are made to destroy China etc. Probably because the weapon itself is designed in part by China along with communist think tanks across the West.
All lines of effort are destructive in purpose. And to see it as the people in the interview do, as hypocrisy or failed altruism is to miss the point and pour gas on the fire.
We are meant to think these measures are meant to be helpful.
Cutting the balls off of your young son is “Trans-affirming Care”.
Believing that is what it is, makes you a key component and accelerant of the weapon itself.
They miss that dialectical key to explain what they already know.
That’s a shame. I also liked Father Ted and The IT Crowd.
You can go along to get along with the leftist degenerates for a time, but once they find out that you’ve done well for yourself, they’ll attack you. It’s better to just keep your distance from anything degenerate. Hopefully Linehan will recover from this dark period and find greater success in the near future.