Sky News Australia are currently in merger talks with the ABC to rebrand as ABC Lite, after sacking Alan Jones last month.
The move comes as Sky cements it’s status as moving further and further left, only now being three months behind the ABC to become EZFKA’s ‘controlled opposition network of choice.’ With Jones out of the way, the stage is set for a rebrand and an easy path to government subsidies to prop up the network.
“It’s been long overdue. Trying to keep boomers and others on the plantation while continually stabbing them in the back and moving further left is getting more and more difficult,” Rupert Murdoch said.
“Look, EZFKA conservatives have proven themselves fucking useless at conserving anything about EZKFA. We’ll still be allowing Rowan Dean and Cory Bernardi to go on a rant about ‘the left’ once a week, to atone for six straight days of globalist talking points.”
“Alan may have been moving further left himself but the Youtube suspension was a lesson that we can’t have any other points of view on this network.”
Piers Morgan is set to join the network next month, in line with the ‘slightly less left than the ABC’ policy implemented by Sky management going forward.
Timbo, you have jumped the shark on this one. I watched Sky News for many years before Murdoch took over. There was always an attempt to maintain balanced political debate. Enter Murdoch, exit Keneally, PVO, Speers, Karvelas, and many more. Even if you didn’t agree with any particular side it was interesting listening to their perspective. My favourite show PM Live went from a panel of 2 conservatives + 2 progressives + host Paul Murray to being a conservative echo chamber. Even the host stopped pretending to be neutral and saying stupid shit like telling young Australians to stop complaining about high house prices and go and raise a family in another city away from the support of family and friends.
No i think they’re spot on about Sky. They’re just following the globalist trend of conservatism becoming slightly less left wing than the left.
This meme can be applied to Sky and the LNP
What have the conservatives ever conserved?
they try to “conserve” stuff from the last generation or so. Maybe two generations.
so it’s a constantly shifting 30-40 year window.
which is why A47’s meme is very much on point.
Lol I just expanded on that in another comment.
On the flip side, what progress are today’s progressives making? Much of the great social and economic reforms that benefitted society are in the rear window. Neoliberalism brought in by conservatives and wokeism brought in by progressives are the things that will bring us back to a noble and serf society of the Middle Ages.
So, I agree with Reusa’s Large MEMBER’s comment below about the fall of Rome.
Mate progressives don’t know what gender they are, or how to not geld their own children.
I have no idea what progress they are making, other than if you are part of the in-crowd/have vag/shameless race hustler, it works out well for you.
Decay is a misused word. If I was to take that word and diagram literally, then we have decayed a lot from the good old days of burning people alive for believing the world was round, or revolved around the sun, or having any opinion that didn’t align with the religious order. A lot of what has happened is just a natural shift away from religious order in a secular society.
And T is on the ball. Most Conservatives are not conservative at all.
Freddy, that’s too much of a gloss on what happened. People mostly didn’t get burned for believing that the world was round or that earth revolves around the sun.
Many people knew this. Including those in the church. What they got burned for is for saying these thoughts out loud – that is, going against the currently-acceptable narrative.
this basically happens to this day.
Do you know why? That’s the best bit.
So the problem was the church maintained a monopoly on interpretations of the will of God.
With the new laws and the telescope, you could predict the movement of the planets. If you could do this, and the priests could not, why should they have a monopoly on interpreting God’s will?
Don’t remember the details, but it’s a fascinating story.
There is some truth to that. I have argued the point with some Progressive friends that they are becoming more oppressive than the oppressors they despised, and that they should refer to their modernism texts and be more tolerant of people with different belief systems.
this happens all the time, if you read history.
progressives/reformers/revolutionaries break through the barriers and come and change things. They kick out whoever was in charge and install themselves (or someone of their choosing).
but of course there is a need to cement the changes, to make them stick, and to protect the Revolution from the reaction. And so the new regime quickly ossifies and begins to oppress those who disagree or do not conform.
The only thing that changes is who is in charge of the oppression machine.
Quoted for emphasis.
People are gonna people.
Ok boomer
i liked alan, he was one of the few modern commentators in australia who i sensed understood things pretty well. didn’t agree with everything he said but he was a breath of fresh air compared to most of them.
The primary conservative strategy is, be 10 years behind liberals and 20 behind progressives.
For them, conservative is what ever they were used to as young people.
This is actually why the Overton window keeps going left, and a socialist like Hitler is now considered far right.
Even more hilarious, back in the day nationalism was considered left wing and agitated for by the usual suspects.
Nationalism was pushed by Bismarck and the German professorial caste for his bid to unify Germany. He paid the academy/press/establishment of course. Back then conservative ment patriarchy, or father land, land of your forefathers etc.
Remember, chuthlu only swims left 😂
👏👏👏👏
Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist, and was far right.
The german socialist party was as socialist as the peoples democratic republic of Korea is democratic.
Or the chinese communist party is now communist for that matter.
So was he lying when he called himself a socialist? Or called his party the national socialists?
i mean, i hear where you are coming from, but i would ask you – can you give me one example of socialism which did not turn into fascism?
this is the core pattern of everything socialist isn’t it? talk about redistributing wealth, and then steal everything you can while pretending to be holier than thou and investing in secret police/gulags.
in fact – from my point of view, the purpose of socialism is to set society on a road to feudal fascism.
Yes.
See my examples. north korea ain’t democratic and china aint commuinist.
This is fundamental human behaviour full stop. Even democracy tends towards this.
Um, I disagree.
When one ventures to the the extreme right like Hitler, it loses all the usual distinctions from the common right and it begins to resemble extreme left because the dose of extremism crushes all the other features of ideology. There’s less difference between communism (as extreme left) and nazism (extreme right) than between the moderate parts of the spectrum and either of these.
Socialism can be featured in literally any ideology of any part of the spectrum without the need to be dominant.
Check the Volks Wagen inception or the paragraph 3 in this article on F and compare it to the known and experienced features of the extreme left ideologies.
Authoritarianism is the thing you are really talking about here, which is a governmental structure.
Socialism, communism and fascism are economic rather than government structures but the 2 become confused.
Do you think current year china is socialist/communist?
This is bs. Socialism, communism and fascism are economic structures but not government?
What are you smoking? Tell that to all the people who died is various kinds of death camps. Did an economic textbook kill them?
And yes, currently China is socialist. Ask Jack ma, or all the other Chinese billionaires. Ask the higher education industry, or Didi which today was forced to delist from the NYSE.
Xi’s whole thing is a return to socialism because capitalism bad. What are you talking about dude?
socialism and communism are easy for me to to understand as economic structures. Fascism, not so much.
however, there is obviously a lot of overlap and interplay between the economic structures and government.
with communism say, it presupposes communal ownership of the means of production & non-market (or not-solely-market) schema of allocation. Now, to have this kind of economic structure, one also needs certain laws and government institutions.
there is nothing theoretically that demands that the government be structured as a one-party state (as with ussr, China, nk). It could well be a true democracy or a monarchy…. But realpolitik practical concerns seem to have resulted in one-party governments for nominally communist states. Probably because they don’t just exist in a vacuum, but they exist in opposition to most of the rest of the world. A rest of the world that would subvert, capture and undermine the communist economic system….
nah.
Government backed billionaires are a sign of fascism not socialism, socialism is about making the little guy better off.
That is the fairytale version of Socialism that ignores the human behaviour of the narcissistic ruling class.
Authoritarian rule is not separated from the economic frameworks, it is a feature of them. “Oh isn’t this (insert ideology here) wonderful let’s have more of it…oh shit”
I’m assuming you haven’t read my longer comment below?
Hitler was democratically elected, stalin was appointed leader of the single party of the state, and various dictators and monarchs around the place have all been authoritarian.
It seems to me that it can be done under all the forms of government I listed.
Similarly china and the USSR pre fall of the berlin wall were single party states and highly socialist, similarly the post WW2 western democracies were pretty socialist, and various oil rich middle eastern dictatorships and monarchies have also been socialist.
Current year china is authoritarian, and fascist, modern western democracies are heading pretty quickly towards fascism, and authoritarianism has leapt into view as well.
Right, so you understand better than Hitler, what he was on about with the whole national socialism thing?
To extend the argument, are you suggesting your understanding of what socialism is, is superior to the ccp?
Even the norks, it’s a big call to say there is nothing democratic about them, for a start most north koreans would probably disagree. And nk was not always like this, until 1970 had a higher income than sk. Sure, it’s a shit government last 30 years, but that is hardly unique.
Also, when did democracies fall into this camp? To paint them all with such a wide brush is disingenuous at best.
I don’t know if I can agree with any of your points.
“ight, so you understand better than Hitler, what he was on about with the whole national socialism thing?
To extend the argument, are you suggesting your understanding of what socialism is, is superior to the ccp?”
Governments, especially authoritarian ones are all about controlling the population through deception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#:~:text=The%20big%20lie%20(German%3A%20gro%C3%9Fe,especially%20as%20a%20propaganda%20technique.
But to have a proper discussion lets define what some words mean clearly.
Communism: property(most) is not owned by individuals but by the state, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs etc.
This says nothing about how governments are formed or elected.
Capitalism: Property is (mostly) privately owned and as such people can use it as they wish in an attempt to make more capital and become wealthy privately.
Under communism a billionaire is an impossibility since you can not own stuff. China is full of millionaires and billionaires hence it can not be communist.
Socialism: That’s much harder, but again is about providing services for the people, and not how the government is organised. How much government support is required to make something socialist? AU 1970’s AU today, full on communism? present day US? Pick your line and draw it in the sand for us.
Fascism: is also a little harder but I would say corporations are the ones getting priority rather than the people under socialism, and present day china probably falls under this, but again draw your line in the sand wherever you want and let us know.
Then we move onto how we choose our government/leadership, which theoretically is completely independent of the economic structures above but in practice they tend to align for whatever reasons.
Democracy(Westminster): people elect representatives that are then given the power rule over the population from multiple parties.
Single party: This gets us china which holds elections but has no opposition so all people running the government are all “party approved”. This may or may not be a lot different to a westminster democracy in practice depending on how different the 2 parties actually are.
Dictatorship: Someone just declares themselves leader and has the support/backing of people with enough muscle to make it stick.
Monarchy: like dictatorship but hereditary.
Authoritarian: a little harder but I would say any of the above governments that is actively ignoring it’s people and forcing them to do things that are against their interests/desires. Where is the line? You draw it and let us know.
If anyone knows history and specifically the fall of the roman empire, then today’s society and trends will seem very familiar and should give you some indication of the future ahead of us.
I do agree with his view.
The fall will not be visible over a lifetime though…
We just entered the initial phase of the debasement of the money and plebes did not yet see that the Denarius of the modern time weights less and it is not quite of the purity required.
If you mean we just left the gold standard, then OK.
https://citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/lets-make-postal-bank-election-issue
Hopefully this can get up somehow
Why? So the government can sell it off in a few years?
We had a government bank and sold it off…
Just like the government phone network, power network and so on.