Archives For Socal Media

I have respect for the talents of Wanda Sykes. I don’t have any patience for racists, or time to devote to writing a 1000 word essay on why I consider her most recent tweet to be passive aggressive nonsense.

So I summed up a 280 character response, which was met with a speedy backhanded reply when Wanda blocked me.

Wanda isn’t the first celebrity to hide behind passive aggressive statements. This platform of hate and division has been the Democrat platform since 2016.

Evidenced in large part by Celebrity leftists who ride the hate either demanding or implying a desire to see Trump supporters (most of whom are mild mannered working mums, dads, and students) rounded up, punished, and purged.

Those celebrities either are Radical Leftist Jihadists themselves, or are fond of keeping in good with them, and see immediate personal gains in upholding the four-year-falsehood groupthink which asserts that Trump supporters are “racists”, “bigots”, and “Nazis” – (the list of gaslighting pejoratives conjured up by the us vs. them mentality of the Radical Left, goes on and on.)

Since the beginning of the year I’ve held stronger to the notion that our battle, and the ones ahead for Western Civilisation, if not also the world, are grounded in the theological task of choosing between myth, superstition, man’s imagination and God’s Word. Sifting fact from fiction and balancing feelings with objective opinion.

To risk sounding like a broken record, I’m convinced that the battle isn’t black vs. white, Left vs. Right, it’s Truth vs. Falsehood.

This is the battleground and individuals like Wanda Sykes, emboldened by legacy media’s half-truths, lies, and the Hollywood echo chamber, characterise its front line.

Many in the West, having enjoyed relative peace under the shared values of Classical Liberal freedoms, framed as they are by Biblical Christian objective morality, have fallen asleep to how easily those freedoms can be lost, and are clueless to how much protecting those freedoms and healthy traditions cost.

We’ve collectively forgotten, and in some cases deliberately abandoned the barricades which hold back the Abyss, applauding, even participating in their destruction.

Every Advent I’m reminded of this through a tradition theologian J.I. Packer held.

Each year (so I was once told by one of my Professors at college who studied under him) Packer, a fan of Puritan literature, would make an effort to read through Pilgrims Progress. Taking up this tradition for Advent, (usually reading it with my kids for homeschool) I’ve come to see why Packer revisited the book every year.

Among the numerous insights released by Bunyan’s allegory is the reminder that truth when coming to blows against falsehood, always involves the persecution of those seeking to buy truth in an unavoidable Fair filled with people who see truth as a threat to the profit they make off selling falsehoods.

As Bunyan told it:

‘One chanced mockingly, beholding the carriages of the men, to say unto them, “What will ye buy?” but Christian and Faithful, looking gravely upon him said, “We buy the truth.” At that there was an occasion taken to despise them the more; some mocking, some taunting, some speaking reproachfully, and some calling upon others to smite them.

It’s almost four hundred years since these words were written, and they still hold a prescient grasp on the way of the world.

To quote Packer,

‘For two centuries Pilgrim’s Progress was the best-read book, after the Bible, in all Christendom, but sadly it is not so today. Yet our rapport with fantasy writing, plus our lack of grip on the searching, humbling, edifying truths about spiritual life that the Puritans understood so well, surely mean that the time is ripe for us to dust off Pilgrim’s Progress and start reading it again.’

For Wanda and company’s victims or potential victims (not saying that I am one) , any psychologist worthy of their degrees would say: “if the hat fits wear it, if it doesn’t, hand it back.”

The worst kind of “comedian” is one who loves to dish out the heat, but can’t take it when it’s thrown back at them.

Taken in context with the background material, which includes four years of actual documented demented Democrat hate, we should note well how the real oppressors are masquerading as the oppressed.


©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Egypt is being petitioned to release Coptic activist Ramy Kamel who was arrested in late November, 2019, by Egyptian security forces.

At the time, Middle East Monitor reported that Kamel’s arrest was part of the Egyptian government’s ‘crackdown on members of the opposition.’

MEM said that Kamel, a ‘founding member of Maspero’s Youth Union’ was arrested ‘without a warrant early in the morning by seven plain clothes police officers.’

The officers ‘confiscated his mobile phone, laptop and camera; and refused to allow him his asthma inhaler.’ (some reports included blood pressure medicine.)

Kamel was accused of ‘joining a terror group, receiving foreign funding and broadcasting false information.’ Then interrogated for over 10 hours.

It’s believed that Kamel’s arrest was related to his outspoken opposition to the widespread persecution, and systemic discrimination of Egyptian Christians.

Maspero Youth Union, a Coptic human rights and religious freedom advocate group, was ‘established after a church on the outskirts of Cairo was torched in October 2011’, when the Egyptian army, at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood, killed 30 protestors.

This week, The Hill reported a ‘bipartisan push’ within Washington, petitioning Egyptian authorities to ‘take action’ and see that Kamel received a ‘fair trial, or dropped charges and an immediate release.’

According to The Hill, ‘Sens. Thom Tills (Republican) and Chris Coons (Democrat), co-chairs of the Senate Human Rights Caucus, sent a letter to the Egyptian embassy in Washington, D.C.’ requesting,

“the Egyptian government, as a steadfast partner of the United States and supporter of religious liberty, to take action commensurate with the values professed in the Egyptian Constitution and compatible with American values regarding human rights. Mr. Kamel has been held under the unclear charges of defamation, funding a terrorist organization, and the misuse of social media. We urge the Egyptian government to honor Mr. Kamel’s right to a fair trial or to release him entirely of the charges held against him.” 

The Hill curiously noted that Kamel was arrested the same month he was to appear before the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, to ‘testify on minority issues’ such as the systemic persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt by Islamists.

In September, Caldron Pool posted an exposition called ‘Jihad of the Womb: The Rampant Islamist Abductions of Egyptian Coptic Christian Women’ where we unpacked the 2012 congressional hearing, and the 2020 Coptic Solidarity report on the ongoing persecution of 12 million Christians in Egypt.

This included a  long list of trafficking victims, damning testimonials of widespread corruption, of law enforcement turning a blind eye, a culture of shame, silence, and powerlessness which enables Islamist people traffickers to carry out abductions with almost 100% impunity.

It’s probable that Kamel is a victim of this corruption.

As recent authoritarian laws which squash freedom in favor of arbitrary LGBTQAAI+ rights in Victoria, prove, religious freedom isn’t solely a point of concern for Egyptians.  

Just as government regulated speech is not freedom of speech [i], faith regulated by the State, is not freedom of religion.

The questionable arrest, and year-long imprisonment of Kamel shows how easy it is for a person to be held without charge – without respect for due process – when governments, who are swept up in an ideological movement, enforce, protect and chain themselves to that ideology, by way of undefined buzzwords like “misusing social media”, “spreading hate”, “extremist” and “terrorist group.”

As many on the Left have chided lawmaking critics of Islam since 9/11, anti-terror laws can be used as a weapon of terror in, and of themselves.

It’s a shame that many on the Left refuse to apply their own criticisms to the downgrade of freedoms caused by the exaltation of arbitrary rights, or open their eyes to how relevant a case like Kamel’s is to the dangers inherent in the Left’s support for authoritarian, arbitrary laws here in the West.

#freeRamyKamel


References:

[i] Babones, S. 2018. The New Authoritarianism, Polity Press

First published on Caldron Pool, 4th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

‘Entrepreneur, digital marketing guru, and best-selling author’, Scott Galloway, told The Australian this week that an unholy alliance existed between Donald Trump, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter.

Galloway ‘wants the US government to radically overfund regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission in America, to rewrite the rule book on anti-trust: moving away from a test around consumer harm and prices back to a test around market power.’

Quoting Galloway, Ticky Fullerton stated, ‘the odds of a possible break-up are three to five times more likely with a well-funded and more thoughtful administration around tech, the Biden/Harris administration.’

This is because ‘Trump has shown just a mix of inconsistency, incompetence and underfunding that transfers advantage to big tech.’ Noting that Big Tech were coming through COVID-19 as big winners.

Galloway’s advice to investors was to move in front of ‘three tsunamis’ which are set to make significant financial gains, as people, and businesses ‘move from commercial to residential, traditional education to online learning, hospitals, and doctors’ offices to home and remote health.’

Galloway makes sense when talking about COVID triggering seismic economic shifts. His absurd claim of an unholy alliance between Trump, and big tech, is way off. 

As ‘Professor of marketing strategy at NYU’, and one-time board member of the New York Times, Galloway’s predictions are probably par for the course.

Support Biden now, be rewarded later. Don’t support Biden now, be punished later.

Meaning that Galloway is assured a place at the power table, where he’ll join the majority of journalists currently playing partisan defense for the opposition in the United States.

The latter having chosen to remain silent on verified facts relating to substantial corruption within the Biden family. Choosing to aid the Biden/Harris camp by not pressuring them to deny categorically, or provide an evidence-based answer.

Here is why Galloway is right that a Biden/Harris administration would be more likely to back the ‘radical overfunding of regulatory bodies.’ It’s also why he’s dead wrong about Trump.

Radicalism is the basis of the Biden/Harris policy platform. Overfunding would require increased taxation, and bigger government. These are areas where the Democrats excel. Taxation and government-will-save-the-day is their default position when offering solutions to problems, whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.

In addition, big tech hates Trump. They’re private bias against the conservative voice, comes out in their public aid of their preferred candidate. In this case Biden (maybe more so, Harris), in their bid for the White House.

Examples of this include Silicon Valley’s very cosy relationship with Communist China, and their stonewalling of the New York Post over verified claims about the Biden family’s business dealings. The continual suppression and control of speech, and information, through agenda driven “fact-checkers.”

From “believe the science about apocalyptic climate change”, to deny the science “there are more than two genders”, “not all women have periods”, “abortion is healthcare”, down to arbitrary laws which represses freedom of speech and individual responsibility, you can be sure that Big Tech supports the Democrat platform.

If an unholy alliance does exist between government and Silicon Valley, its members don’t include Donald Trump or his supporters.

For Big Tech, it’s not a matter of if Biden wins, it’s a matter of when Trump loses. They want to be on the “right side of history”* when Biden secures (with their help) an “unprecedented” and “historic” 2020 election victory. (*newspeak for: in good with wannabe Leftist overlords).

Big Tech needs accountability. There’s bipartisan agreement on this. We don’t want a centralized conglomerate with a monopoly on information; governed by pompous, dishonest gatekeepers who adjust algorithms, to favour news and information that best serves their bottom line, favourite politician, or activist lobby group, and not the masses.

Galloway overlooks the overall mistreatment of the Trump administration, and Donald Trump since his election. Much of it encouraged by Big Tech, who fail to censor speech which breaches their own rules, from the likes of Cathy Griffin, Carl Reiner, Bette Midler et.al. Then shadow bans entities and individuals who aren’t ideologically aligned with the prevailing worldview in Silicon Valley.


References:

Fullerton, T. 2020. Tech Giants ‘lapping up a tsunami of capital’ The Australian, Wednesday 29th October 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 29th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Alongside the nonsensical Australian frenzy over toilet paper, and its bizarre connection to the Coronavirus, sits news about French farmers, living on the Atlantic coast, who are utilising donkey’s to keep their sheep safe from wolves.

The Times reported that the breed of donkey being used is the Poitou; ‘one of the largest types of donkey, long prized by farmers for its ability to fight off wolves by biting and striking out with its powerful front hoofs.’

In its report, The Australian cited Benoit Biteau, a donkey breeder in the Poitau-Charentes region, who said that

“donkey has a very protective instinct, and unlike a dog, isn’t likely to die in combat with the wolves. It is extremely aggressive towards canines and can protect sheep and goats from attack. The village had installed sheep to graze marshland but the flock was regularly attacked by stray and domestic dogs. The mayor called me to supply a donkey – and there was not a single attack after that.”

As strange as it may sound, using donkeys to keep sheep safe from wolves isn’t uncommon. Queensland’s Department of Agriculture & Fisheries (DAF) officially recognises donkeys as a ‘guardian’, stating that ‘under certain conditions, guardian donkeys can be a suitable option to guard sheep and cattle. Donkeys are aggressive towards predators and may provide indirect protection for domestic animals.’

Could these French farmers, who’ve been swearing for donkey’s years about a breed of donkey’s ability to protect sheep, and kick ass, teach Australians something about panic-buying goods for no real justifiable reason, other than an asinine, “everybody else is doing it, [so] I’m doing it too?

The answer is a voluminous “yes!”

Instead of panic-buying toilet paper, Aussies exhibiting naïve, sheep-like tendencies would do better protecting their backsides, and those of their neighbour, by adopting some of the characteristics of these asses being used in France to protect sheep. Simply by challenging what they’re sold by wolves on both mainstream and social media, who appear to be capitalising on people’s fears over the Coronavirus.

One doesn’t have to be rocket scientist to know that marketeers adapt quickly. They know how easy it is to manipulate a crisis and make money from it. Easily duping people into willingly handing over their wallets, without asking about what they’re jumping into, why and who for.

What’s concerning is that this panic-buying has revealed there are voter aged citizens out there, who are gullible, and therefore politically pliable. They are making decisions based on everything they see on T.V. or read on social media, without giving much thought to the what, the why, the how and the who. These reactions are either an indictment on Australia’s education system, a warning to discerning citizens, or both.

Look at how easy it was for media personalities to incite a poorly informed mob into raising pitch-folks and torches in a uniformed march against “no” voters during the SSM survey, Donald Trump, Israel Folau, Brett Kavanaugh, Coopers Beer, Margaret Court, and Scott Morrison.

If “influencers” and media manipulators can control what you think, they can control what you believe, what you can say, and in turn, control how you behave. Thus turning the free citizen, who has rights and responsibilities, into a slave with none.

Beware the auctioneers. Don’t be a dumb-ass. Look before you leap, and graciously encourage your neighbour to do the same.


First published on Caldron Pool, 5th March, 2020.

Photo by Claire Mueller on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020

George Soros sent in a brief letter to the Financial Times, calling for the removal of Facebook’s CEO and COO, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. Soros claims that Zuckerberg, who hasn’t followed Twitter in banning all political advertising, is helping Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign in a ‘kind of mutual assistance arrangement with D.T.’ Soros goes on to demand Facebook take action stating, ‘Mark Zuckerberg should be removed from control of Facebook.’

The F.T. posted a copy and paste transcript of Soros’ proposition yesterday. Notably absent from the article was the lack of an introduction, and commentary from FT staff. The transcript was also published without any screenshot, or scanned image of the actual letter, which is strange for publishers who desire to maintain a rigorous level of journalism. Not validating the source of the original letter, casts doubt on its authenticity. However, if urban legend about the power of George Soros is to be believed, it’s possible this is how he intended it, and is exactly how he wanted the letter to be presented.

This isn’t the first time Soros has gone public with his desire to see the current leadership of Facebook face the business world equivalent of a firing squad.

He penned an article for the New York Times, published on the 31st January, arguing that Zuckerberg is engaged in a quid pro quo deal with Trump. As Soros sees it: the deal involves Trump protecting Facebook from government control, and in return Zuckerberg helps get Trump re-elected in 2020.

As evidence (and it’s flimsy), Soros went back to 2016, saying that ‘Facebook provided the Trump campaign with embedded staff who helped to optimize its advertising program. (Doing what Hilary Clinton’s election team declined to do).’ According to Soros, ‘Facebook gave Trump an edge, marking the beginning of a special relationship.’ He then stated that a recent meeting between Trump and Zuckerberg, ‘raised serious questions’.

The billionaire also accused Zuckerberg of only wanting to make a profit. Claiming that under Zuckerberg’s leadership Facebook was only about ‘making money’, not caring about ‘inflammatory and false content, and failing to adequately punish those who spread false information – nor does the company warn those who are exposed to lies.’

Note that Soros never mentions Facebook’s existing fact checking mechanisms when he claims Facebook isn’t doing them. Neither does Soros provide adequate examples or definitions of the terms he’s using. Perhaps what Soros means is that Facebook isn’t fact checking and blocking content that challenges his ideology, or content that he might arbitrarily consider to be false, hateful, phobic, bigoted etc.

The whole thing reeks of desperation. It’s an anti-Trump political manoeuvre. It has little to do with Facebook, and more to do with Soros’ unresolved issues over Hilary Clinton losing what was considered to be an unlosable election. If anything raises serious questions, it’s his inquisition of Trump and Zuckerberg. When a billionaire such as Soros cries victim wisdom should prompt us to ask why. There’s no doubt Soros lost money, and a special level of power because of Clinton’s election loss.

Trump isn’t protecting Facebook, Zuckerberg is. The CEO is doing what he’s paid to do. He is acting in the best interests of his customers, and company, not power-hungry would-be overlords, who think the world owes total allegiance to them, and their ideology.

Soros’ bizarre fiat shows that Zuckerberg is on the right track. This is probably why Soros wants his head. Zuckerberg is no longer buying what Soros is selling. Take for instance, Zuckerberg’s recent defence of free speech and the reforms he’s attempted to implement. They protect Facebook from the Left’s creeping arbitrary control of free speech, by labelling all opposing viewpoints as “hate speech”. Add to this the Left’s creeping arbitrary control over who is good and who is evil.

Zuckerberg appears to be diverging from the pre-approved narrative of leftism, and their zero-sum practice of achieving political goals, which only serve the interests of those who advocate political correctness, abortion, euthanasia, open borders, the imposition of new cultural laws via the LGBT religion, policing speech, thought and undermining the Biblical Christian foundation of Western Civilisation et.al.

As a result of Zuckerberg’s pro-free speech reform, Soros has called for a mutiny at Facebook. Instead of entering into a dialogue with Zuckerberg, Soros has gone behind his back in an attempt to remove him by proxy. One should ask, how this is not another coup attempt, in line with the now proven, Russian Collision hoax, and lies surrounding the attempt to impeach Trump. Soros, it would appear, is on the war path, and is seeking to take command of what he deems to be his enemy’s central communications hub.

Soros’ arrogance in presuming to control what happens at Facebook, must be blinding him to how much his reasoning and persistent demands here, confirm what many have suspected. That a) He’s too close to the Clinton’s b) He has far too much power and reach c) He funds Leftist divisive politics. Soros deliberately trying to undermine the CEO of an independent company, potentially putting that company and its employees at risk, would be enough evidence to support this.

Ironically, regardless of whether Facebook removes its CEO and COO under Soros-fiat, what he has achieved here is the opposite of what he intended. Soros has negated his questionable accusations against Donald Trump and Mark Zuckerberg by exposing himself as the real villain; a divisive manipulator, stamping up and down in frustration because he and others like him didn’t get their own way in October 2016. An event that, despite the lies, false accusations and hostile, undemocratic interference, coming from Soros’ own side of politics, looks set to, thankfully, repeat itself again in October, 2020.


References:

See hyperlinks embedded within the article.

First published on Caldron Pool, 19th February, 2020.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Avi Yemini was banned from Twitter after a tweet addressed to climate change activist Greta Thunberg, was flagged as being in breach of Twitter’s EULA.

Yemini’s criticism wasn’t without merit. He was responding to Greta’s widely publicised, scripted speech, performed before the UN summit on Climate Change. Her performance appeared manufactured, and forced.

Emotionally distraught, Greta appeared to be intimidated and scared. She repeated the words ‘’How dare you” as part of her claim that the UN (aka the world) had “stolen her dreams and childhood with empty words”, and that “people are suffering, people are dying” and that “entire ecosystems are collapsing.”

Greta preached from the official socialist narrative on “climate justice.” The 16 year old passionately asserted that we’re “in the beginning of a mass extinction”; and that instead of inciting panic and forcing irrational change, all the UN does is “talk about money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.”

Her shaky performance prompted Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire to point out that Greta comes from a family of talented performers. Citing The Washington Examiner, Saavedra explained that her parents are ‘stage-parents’. Her mother sang opera internationally, and her father and grandfather both gained fame through acting and directing.”

Matt Walsh chimed in saying that Greta Thunberg was a victim of child abuse:

‘If any grown up in Thunberg’s life really cared about her psychological and emotional well-being, they would sit her down and explain that climate change is not going to destroy human civilization. Yes, the climate is changing. Climates tend to do that. But whatever role humans play in that process, and to whatever degree, it is not going to result in the end of all life as we know it. Talk of a 10-year, or 12-year, or 20-year, timeline before planetary catastrophe is all an invention of politicians and media personalities. Scientists don’t speak this way.’

Walsh wasn’t the only person to show serious concern for the teenage activist. Social media feedback, both for and against, has #Greta mentioned in over 1.21 million tweets since her speech.

Avi Yemini was among them. It seems that someone behind the scenes took a dislike to his criticism and decided hit the big, red, shiny, hammer and sickle button. His alleged crime against the people’s republic of Twitter was “manipulation and spam.”

Given the large amount of voices on social media speaking out in concern for Greta’s role and how she is being treated by her handlers, Twitter’s beef, is apparently not so much with what was said, but who, and how they said it.

Yemini wrote:

“I hate the UN more than you could imagine, but they didn’t steal your dreams or childhood – your parents did. They should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put you through. They’ve scared you into an extremist.”

TR news posted Avi’s Youtube response to the Twitter ban, where he accused the social media platform of concocting “an excuse to silence him.” Though the ban is now under review, Avi asked for support saying, “use hashtag #FreeAvi because whether you agree with me or not, this is a freedom of speech issue”, and if “they can come for me” on a bogus charge, “they will come for you.”

Earlier this year, Yemini was also permanently banned from Facebook, after Jim Jefferies had tried to set him up, using the dishonest journalistic practice of re-engineering interviews, through cut and paste sound bites to perpetuate a particular narrative. Yemini alleges it was an attempt to ‘brand him as far-right and somehow link him to the atrocities committed during the Christchurch shooting.’

Facebook banned Yemini for “hate speech” because he posted hidden video footage of Jim Jefferies, ‘mocking Mohammad and drawing him as a ‘wobbly ghost’.’

The Facebook ban coincided with Yemini being blocked from entering the United States back in April. His entry was stopped after Comedy Central reported him to American authorities, due to concerns they had about him walking into Comedy Central and ‘confronting producers’ An interview resurfaced around the time of the Christchurch shootings featuring Yemini, who had said that he only agreed to do the original interview with the ‘proviso they didn’t put him in the same story as neo-Nazis.’

Yemini told 10 Daily that his concern was due to Comedy Central not sticking to that arrangement, and instead, ‘editing and context were manipulated. Ergo he was planning to walk into Comedy Central and confront producers, [because they] weren’t responding online.’

Avi Yemini wasn’t wrong in showing concern for Greta. Nor was he wrong in his criticism of her handlers.

It’s important to note that Greta isn’t on trial, neither is science. What is on trial is the misuse and manipulation of science for political and financial gain, via a bandwagon fallacy. Apocalyptic climate change does violence to the scientific method, because it silences questions. It is a narrative built on fear and groupthink.

Greta’s speech shows us that kids are under immense psychological and emotional pressure to process what they’re being sold. All of which is generated by apocalyptic climate change extremists. That is why I disagreed with Tim Costello when he supported the climate strike calling it a Christian duty. Kids are being over-burdened with fears of the world ending. All based on an hypothesis, turned-vicious-dogma. Apocalyptic climate change is politics veiled as science. It’s immoral and unchristian to stand by and applaud such manipulation. It is child abuse.

Greta’s speech today proved that her handlers are the ones betraying her. Not Avi Yemini. Not the majority who join him in questioning the narrative of fear, used to push apocalyptic climate change, and the marketing package it’s encased in.

#bewaretheauctioneers

UPDATE: Twitter reinstated Avi’s account on the 26th September, after the review.


First published on Caldron Pool, 24th September, 2019

Photo by Kelli McClintock on Unsplash 

©Rod Lampard, 2019

As it goes with the internet, “anything you do, and say, can, and will be used against you” in the court of social media opinion. This is of course only if the wolves which fill the ranks of online lynch mobs, smell blood. This rule applies to everyone regardless of status.

Although desperate, anti-Trump Leftists have Brett Kavanaugh now back in the top spot on hash tag algorithms, one of the latest social media meltdowns concern Beatles drummer, Ringo Starr’s support for Brexit.

The meltdown was triggered by a Stephen Smith interview Starr did for the BBC back in 2017.

Ringo Starr’s alleged great crime against humanity?

He said, had he been in Britain at the time of the Brexit referendum, he would’ve voted for it and that the government needs to make Brexit happen:

“The people voted and they have to get on with it, but suddenly, it’s like, we don’t like that vote. And I’m like, what do you mean you don’t like that vote? You had the vote. This is what won. Let’s get on with it. I would have voted for Brexit. I would have voted to get out…”

Starr, who now lives in America also said,

“Brexit was a great move. To be in control of your own country is a good move.”

RT.com headlined the melodramatic hash tag meltdown as “Ringo Get’s Cancelled: Ex-Beatle Starr savaged online for calling Brexit a ‘great move’ in 2017.

The Guardian didn’t seem to have anything new to add. However, Harriett Gibsone’s article from 2017 mentioning Starr’s interview did add that Paul McCartney hadn’t voted because of a US tour at the time, but had said “even if I had been able to, I was so confused. You were hearing what seemed to be good arguments on both sides.”

If I was a complete cynic I’d immediately link the timing of the social media meltdown with news of Ringo Starr’s soon to be released new album called ‘What’s My Name’. I’d start to wonder if his genuine views on Brexit, in 2017, were brilliantly used as a catapult for free publicity.

If true, it shows how docile and empty minded people easily offended have become; easy enough for publicists to manipulate so as to generate (stir?) interest under the “any publicity is good publicity” banner, via the 24 hour outrage cycle, driven largely by the Leftist propaganda machine we call Twitter.

The internet meltdown, which included hate from Remainers (anti-Brexit voters) and a fierce defence from Brexiteers, provided free online publicity for the new album. For Starr the temporary irrational heat generated over his Brexit comments in 2017 is a win. The Beatles drummer and Narrator of Thomas the Tank Engine, gets the last laugh. From a marketing point of view, it’s pure genius. Whether intended or not, Ringo Starr’s support for Brexit won the internet this week and hardly anyone noticed why.


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th September, 2019

©Rod Lampard, 2019