Last week I came across an interview by Sarah Ferguson with Steve Bannon on the ABC’s Four Corners program, and posted it on Facebook. The only person I ended up Red Pilling was my mum, this is what happened...

‌                                                                                           ‌

I missed the initial broadcast and only discovered it from the media furore that erupted the following day, after its showing triggered near universal frothing of the mouth by various progressive commentators.

We had Osman Faruqi (Assman Farkyoui) who saw it as an attack by privileged western White women who dared to discuss ideas that he found threatening - back under their burkas with them, next they’ll be discussing icky things like their menstrual cycles (there isn’t a safe space big enough that Farkyoui wouldn’t find threatening).

But the complaints weren’t limited to our ethnic wallflowers. Dan Aykroid look alike Jason Wilson, wrote an epic word salad from which I managed to extract his key points: Bannon shouldn’t have been given a platform because he failed to condemn, and occasionally associated with people who questioned the intense pursuit of Globalism, people who questioned the morality of mass migration, and people who questioned if Multiculturalism should even be pursued at all – as though that were a dark unmentionable moral crime akin to fucking your sister.

But all this is by the by. Rabid foaming at the mouth and exploding heads among Guardian journalists is a near daily event, and would not have necessarily enticed me to watch the video.

The most intriguing thing that caused me to think that the Bannon interview might be worth watching was the defence of the interview by well-known female journalists who would normally fall well inside the same camp of those progressive leftist commentators - Leigh Sales, Virginia Trioli, and of course Sarah Ferguson and Sally Neighbour.

Here was an internecine war emerging in the Left, between new age Progressive Leftists commentators intensely arguing for self-censorship and deplatforming, and old school leftists who thought Bannon’s ideas should be tested and his position challenged – now this was something interesting!

And so it was that I posted the link to the Bannon interview on Facebook and... nothing. No comments, no likes, nothing. I don’t use Facebook much, I occasionally post stuff that interests me but it is usually interesting enough to draw out a comment or a like, but on this occasion nothing.

No matter what your position or politics the interview made for riveting viewing – two pugilists, going toe to toe for 40 minutes, neither giving an inch. Riveting viewing. But, believe it or not, I’m not writing this piece about the Bannon interview, nor the reaction to it, I’m writing about the non-reaction to Bannon’s interview (In truth I'm still working on Red pilling my mum, but at least she's now holding the pill in her hand).

Anyhow, a couple days later over the weekend I was speaking to my mother and she mentioned that she’d watched the video and thought it was amazing; “There was so much there that I agreed on. I watched it reluctantly as I really don’t like the man. But then I kept finding myself agreeing with him. So much of it was common sense.”

(This was, incidentally much the same impression that I formed when I first saw Bannon interviewed on Bloomberg in relation to his views on China

Intrigued that I’d at last found someone who had watched my link, even if it was my mum, I asked why she thought the way she did of Bannon. Had she seen him speak previously in any interviews? No. Had she read anything he’d written? No. Had any of her friends spoken about him? No.

Finally I asked if she'd thought it was a great interview and that there were so many points she agreed with, why hadn't she commented on it or shared it. Now her answers became less direct and more evasive, from which I gathered that she didn't want people knowing she'd viewed the interview or had been exposed to his ideas.

Her entire impression of Bannon was one that she had subconsciously picked up from hearing about him as he was occasionally mentioned on SBS news or by reference to him by some social commentator in the Sunday papers... usually mentioned alongside the word Nazi or Racist.

So this got me thinking, how come so much of what Bannon said switched a light bulb on in my mother’s head? If it was so self-evident and so common sense, how come she’d never heard his arguments or positions before? And if she agreed with them, why was she afraid to speak about them?

The argument between the “left” and “right”, or “globalists” and “nationalists” isn’t over the facts, in general the facts are unquestionable. What they are fighting over is the "Truth".

The Osamans, the Jason Wilsons, the Chris Zappones of the world aren't arguing over the facts, but the interpretation of those facts - they want to control the range of socially acceptable opinion, commonly referred to as the Overton Window or the "Truth". But unlike other legitimate participants in the market place of ideas the 'progressive' zealots of the Left do this by denying the legitimacy of anyone else’s interpretation of those facts – especially views from the Right that they believe are immoral.

To zealots the only valid interpretation of the facts are their own, how do they know this? Because they’re zealots – they know with the same certainty as 18th century colonists, or 15th century Catholic missionaries, all the way back through history to those 1st century Jews facing off against the Romans – their truth is the only truth, because their morals (which they judge themselves) are the most noble. They will point to facts of course, but only facts that support their narrative. Facts that may cast doubt on their 'truths' are ignored or described as 'controversial' or 'problematic' (not that commentators on the right can be any less guilty).

The reality is the “Truth”, if there is any such thing, can only be the accumulation of multiple individual interpretations of a set of facts throughout a society – the distribution of which will generally be shaped like a bell curve, with more extreme views thinly held on the wings, and the great majority found within the middle.

Thus the truth, if any subjective interpretation of a set of facts can lead to a truth, can only be drawn from views found in the middle, while further to the wings of the bell curve the thinner the “truth” becomes.

Take immigration for instance, the spectrum of views and opinions might range from unthinkable at the tips of the curve, back through to extreme, radical, then acceptable and on to sensible in the middle:

If we hone in on the right side of the bell curve, the spectrum of views and distribution through the population in accordance to various grades of say “Nationalist” might look something like this:

What the progressive left have done and continue to do, is to “unthing” the spectrum of debate on the right. Essentially they remove ALL discussion of ALL points that occupy the “middle” of the right side of the bell curve of political thought and discussion:

By removing any discussion on radical or even extreme views, a gap is created in the discussion of legitimate topics (that is why my mother was only hearing some of these views and comments for the first time):

Over time without the perspective of the “middle”, discussion points that might be viewed as conservative but rational get collapsed against the few extreme far right topics that the media deliberately seeks to promote, in order to give a distorted sense of perspective, thus tainting all conservative or nationalist views as extreme or repugnant (which is why, prior to watching the interview, my mother thought Bannon was a racist Nazi).

Once the centre ground on the right is “Unthinged” , perspective becomes distorted and the Overton window of acceptable discussion and the "Truth" is pulled sharply to the left. That is why we can have an apparent main stream journalist like Peter Martin champion some utopian fantasy like open borders in his newspaper column, an intellectually extremist position on the spectrum of discussions around immigration, but not have Steve Bannon champion economic nationalism, much less any other form of nationalism.

The end result of this artificially induced perspective is that the self-enforced censorship of all Nationalist debate by the media has left the West without the necessary DNA in their debate, so to speak, to combat the worst elements of Globalism.

The antidote to combating the worst excesses of Globalism doesn’t come from pursuing discussion points around milder forms of Globalism, but in ideas found in the promotion of national self-interest; a perspective that is found naturally within Nationalism and one that has been, and is being, deliberately suppressed.

This is the primary reason that the progressive left’s heads have been exploding over the Bannon interview – NOT that they are afraid it will cause some far Right demagogue to arise, but because they are terrified that by having these ideas fleshed out and discussed, it will start to immunise or inoculate a large percentage of the population against Globalist ideas.

People will come to realise that they’ve been fooled into accepting extremist Globalist positions of open borders and high immigration, by the cheap carnival trick of distorting perspective.

Australians run the risk of doing irredeemable harm to ourselves and our society, by being tricked into accepting extremist Globalist positions thanks to the unthinging of the spectrum of debate on the right hand side of our national conversation. It has left our national conversation being distorted and disconnected between those having the conversation and a large percentage of the population for whom they don't speak.

For instance on the question of immigration by occupation, when asked if immigration should be 'increased a little or a lot' Communication workers, i.e. Reporters, Commentators, media etc 72% thought it should be increased (According to a recent Lowy poll more than half of all Australians think immigration is running too high).

Not that the media would ever acknowledge this, they will point to any number of investigative journalist pieces on immigration, like 4 Corners recent exposé 'Big Australia' and say "Look, we are having a public discussion on these topics."

But instead of coming at it genuinely from the true perspective of nationalist self interest, something that has been constantly suppressed, they instead build a fake consensus by having the Pro's and Con's of immigration discussed by a panel of left leaning Globalists and a panel of Right leaning Globalists and the result is always the same - that mass immigration is inevitable and so it's just a question of whether we should just lie back and accept it or start charging by the hour.

So instead of this honest debate, we get the repugnant views of the likes of Osman Faruqi and Jason Wilson who are in the process of undermining one of the key defining characteristics of Western culture that has allowed Australia to create one of the highest standard of livings in the world – free discussion in the market place of ideas.

These social extremists are distorting the price of these ideas and in the process disenfranchising a large percentage of the population from their legitimate and truly held views, while helping to advance the politics and causes of radical extremist views on the left.

As Australia continues down the track of its radical pursuit of mass migration and extreme Multiculturalism, helped in no small part by the 'unthinging' of National self-interest among the existing population, the voices of both these moralising minorities and their calculating allies in the progressive left will gradually become louder, as will their so called contribution to "free discussion" i.e. ever more intense fake consensus and an ever growing list of topics they become outraged over and refuse to allow discussion over continues to expand.

The unthinging of Steve Bannon isn't a story of social justice, it is a story of social and cultural repression.