NewsBite

Jason Gagliardi

‘An amazing display of doublethink by Sir Richard trying to be woke and wealthy’

Jason Gagliardi
Flying high: Saint Richard gives out indulgences for guilt-ridden frequent flyers. Picture: Liam Kidston.
Flying high: Saint Richard gives out indulgences for guilt-ridden frequent flyers. Picture: Liam Kidston.

Welcome to the column where you provide the content. Sir Richard Branson, speaking in Brisbane to promote Virgin Australia’s new route to Tokyo, said airlines needed to work harder at reducing their carbon footprint so environmentally conscious travellers did not have to feel guilty about flying. Nosaj started seeing double:

“I’ve just had this very second an epiphany. I use that religious word because to live in Woke World one must be an absolute believer … suspend one’s rationality and keep repeating the Climate Catastrophists Catachism (CCC). The trick is how to function practically in Woke World when we’re actually still in the Real World where the universal laws of rationality and cause and effect still operate. Are you ready for the answer?

“Doublethink. The act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs. My Nobel prize worthy notion is that George Orwell’s 1949 dystopian novel 1984 can be applied not only to totalitarian regimes like the old Soviet Union and todays China but to the Western World of Woke.

“Saint Richard knows that to be welcomed and adored in Woke World he must believe the CCC. But as Sir Richard in the Real World be knows that to make obscene levels of wealth real things like aeronautics and economics must actually work so he also believes in the universal laws of rationality and cause and effect. Hence the amazing display of doublethink by Saint Sir Richard trying to be woke and wealthy and guilt-free.”

Rolf agreed:

“There you have it. Succinctly put by Branson. Go green to ease flyers guilt. Not because of emissions. Nothing but socio-cultural guilt.”

Eric’s wife weighed in:

“It seems to me that Sir Richard needs to start putting his money where his always self-promoting mouth is. Just how many thousands of hectares in the Amazon rainforest has he bought and preserved intact for the future and how many thousands of hectares in other countries has he bought and sown to tree plantations to actually absorb the monstrous levels of CO2 his various businesses have pumped out over his adult life?

“Planes and ships require massive amounts of coking coal/mined iron ore and shipped steel to construct them and they go absolutely nowhere without massive amounts of fuel to power them.

“Seems to me he is hoping to distract the gullible with his constant ‘virtue-signalling,’ but actually he is just a hypocrite like most ‘celebrities’ these days.”

David doubted:

“Didn’t he just float a cruise line, one of the worst ‘polluters’ of CO2 around?”

Pietro the Deplorable poked his tongue out:

“Flying guilt? I fly about two times per week and not a bit of guilt do I feel. Actually I miss the old ‘Earth Hour’. I would light up the house with floodlights and have every light in the house switched on not to mention all ACs going full bore. The aim was to make our house visible from space. I suffer from the opposite of virtue signalling.”

Mark said:

“I think Sir Richard has been over imbibing in the dreaded green cordial. In the case of his space travel venture Virgin Galactic, Sir Richard said passengers would be encouraged to ensure each suborbital trip was carbon-neutral. If his passengers were serious about that aspect, they wouldn’t be stepping onboard the thing in the first place.”

Tamas was amused:

“ ‘ … ensure each suborbital trip was carbon-neutral’. Bwahahahahaha!!! Aaaahhahahahahaha!!!!! Funniest thing I’ve read this week.”

Philip feared:

“Sir Richard Branson said improving sustainability was the No 1 priority for any airline. … what happened to passenger safety? Maybe when Branson travels he flies QANTAS or any other airline that will place passenger safety as priority.”

The lesson from Les:

“As flying is overwhelmingly a discretionary activity, the way you avoid guilt is obvious. On the other hand maybe it is like Augustine’s prayer: ‘Lord make me chaste but not yet’.”

-

Who’s your daddy: Q&A assembles the new patriarchy in one panel.
Who’s your daddy: Q&A assembles the new patriarchy in one panel.

After a panel of ‘feminists’ on Q&A advocated killing men to stop rape and burning stuff, Janet Albrechtsen suggested the bossy, look-at-me brigade were the new patriarchy, while Brendan O’Neill wrote that it was a bit rich being told to check one’s privilege by privileged people playing at being oppressed like flame-haired, foul-mouthed woke warrior Mona Eltahawy. Antipostmodernism Stephen was a wake-up:

“Jordan Peterson has pointed out that on the Right of politics people know when the Right go too far and must be criticised and marginalised - typically extreme nationalism with race hate. The Left however places no limits on the far-Left. When the far-Left go nuts and nasty the more moderate Left just sit in silence.

“This reveals that the Left is not capable of reflecting on its faults and excesses and are willing to sacrifice their own professed values about tolerance, compassion and fairness, and turn a blind eye to extremism and depravity in order to maintain solidarity with those on their side of the ideological divide.

“The Left won’t attack these particular feminists and their Q&A disgraceful antics because they don’t want to be seen to attack feminism; but by not speaking out the reputation of feminism and even women generally is diminished amongst fair minded people.”

Tim said:

“Janet, you’ve summed it up perfectly: “feminism remains a movement for a small clique of attention-seekers, more performers than principled advocates for other women.”

Scott suggested:

“Women like these have set the feminist cause back decades. Most men I know enjoy and value women in the workplace. But the shrill man hating dogma that these ‘feminists’ employ is actively discouraging men from engaging, collaborating and mentoring with women.”

Henrietta’s history:

“The Patriarchy was rarely ever about self realisation as a ‘strong and independent’ man, who was a narcissist. The Patriarchy was primarily leadership as a result of an organic reality that prior to artificial birth control women tended to have many children. As a result, they needed protection and providing for.

“Men loved women and so what were they to do? Sit around? No, they went out and provided and as a result, led. Today’s feminism has nothing of this in it. It’s about self fulfilment and ‘me.’ It’s not possible to equate modern feminism with the Patriarchy.”

Rebecca added:

“And because men are arguably stronger they also did all the most horrible jobs in the world, including going off to wars and being killed. Men have been just as restrained by societal norms and expectations as have women. They have just been different sorts of restrictions as humans evolved since time began, starting with the hunter-gatherer role for men while the women stayed in the caves with the young. There is such gross imbalance in the uber feminists’ arguments and even more gross imbalance in their thinking and analytical skills.”

Archimedes asserted:

“Under no circumstances should a taxpayer funded organisation such as the ABC present a biased platform for foul-mouthed guests to attack half its audience. It is clear that the ABC is considered a socialist tool by those who are involved within it, and by those who protect it.”

Thomas said:

“One of the questioners on Q&A the other night asked the panel what positive masculinity looks like and not one of the feminists could answer the question. The red-haired one actually admitted to having absolutely no idea – in a manner that implied positive masculinity simply doesn’t exist in the real world.

“Think of all the men across this country who wake up every morning and slave away in the workplace day in day out (often in the most dangerous jobs that women cannot or will not do) just so they might bring home a modest pay cheque to provide for their wives and daughters. “Think of all the fathers who are perfect role models for their young boys, and would take a bullet to protect their daughters. All the men in uniform who these feminists would call upon without hesitation should they find themselves in danger. All the men who have lost their lives protecting our country and the way of life these feminists enjoy.

“It’s a terrible indictment of our current culture that we allow these entitled and privileged feminists any of our attention at all.”

Michael mooted:

“The great hypocritical irony of identity politics is the refrain of rejecting ‘stereotypes’. Stereotypes of sex, race and (Islamic) religion that are evil and discriminatory. However they employ stereotypes to denigrate all white men for their ‘privilege’, despite the inherent lack of utility in describing such people accurately. Like you, Brendan, my entire family, on both sides, has long histories of being poor white working class.

“If my family has wealth and degrees (we do), it is because we worked through Uni to pay for it, and years later to pay it off. We shared child rearing, housekeeping and stepped aside (or down) to encourage our wives careers. Now, when we give opinions at work, we get eye rolls from younger female colleagues and are accused of ‘mansplaining’. In fact it is nothing to do with gender and everything to do with ‘experience’. 25 full time years ought to trump 1 year straight out of uni! This ideology has given an incredibly divisive and discriminatory way to simply ignore experience in the workforce!”

Jennifer wasn’t joking:

“I, being a proud Aussie Sheila, get sick and tired of these jokers and their BS. To Mona and her mob, leave our blokes alone, and stop acting as if you speak for all women, you don’t.”

Andybro mansplained:

“The great irony is, of course, that without the much hated White Male, everyone would be underprivileged. White Males are responsible for almost all of the comforts enjoyed in modern living. Think: electricity, medicine, sustainable agriculture, and housing, to name but a few.”

Last word to TonyW:

“ ‘This is morally perverse and historically illiterate.’ I believe you have very succinctly highlighted why this ‘wokeness’ grates and aggravates so many of us. Deep down, we know it is crap and we resent what we feel is happening, it is being used to establish a new hierarchy with power and authority over the masses.

“The downtrodden are not ‘woke’ nor do they aspire to be. It is those with unearned privilege and a burning desire to dominate that embrace this distorted doctrine. Just juvenile tyrants demanding the right to rule.

-

Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.

Read related topics:Virgin Australia
Jason Gagliardi

Jason Gagliardi is the engagement editor and a columnist at The Australian, who got his start at The Courier-Mail in Brisbane. He was based for 25 years in Hong Kong and Bangkok. His work has been featured in publications including Time, the Sunday Telegraph Magazine (UK), Colors, Playboy, Sports Illustrated, Harpers Bazaar and Roads & Kingdoms, and his travel writing won Best Asean Travel Article twice at the ASEANTA Awards.

Add your comment to this story

To join the conversation, please Don't have an account? Register

Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout

Original URL: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/an-amazing-display-of-doublethink-by-sir-richard-trying-to-be-woke-and-wealthy/news-story/5f888a45a907f89e34dd3c2dbd9c3174