Artificial consensus and their ABC – A case study


Richard B Riddick

One thing us alternative media and Anti-Left commentators always bang on about is the “artificial consensus”. I have pontificated on the concept at length here, but I thought I would take the opportunity to take a particular example and really go through it in depth to demonstrate how leftists (with taxpayer funded help…) co-operate to create the illusion that their views are self evidently correct and mainstream.

I have chosen to go through a Twitter “moments” posted by ABC Indigenous.

“Moments” are essentially where you compile a group of tweets from different tweeters (or is that twits…) into one “pseudo-tweet” which is able to trend. In particular it is important to note, that given the ABC’s “moments” tend to always trend I’d infer that they (as a verified state broadcaster) are receiving some help from the twitter algorithm, because their likes and re-tweets never seem particularly high.

So, by now most XYZ readers would be familiar with Tarneen’s “f— Australia, I hope it burns to the ground” comment. Naturally, ABC Indigenous have gone in to bat for her with some “warm” coverage.

So the key part of the “moments” is the use of the word “people”, it implies that there is some group of normies, civilians, lay persons etc. who also hold the view that Tarneen was right to say “f— Australia, I hope it burns to the ground”.

Well let us test that particular hypothesis.

First tweet of the “moment” is from the Daily Mail, I assume they include this to avoid the suggestion of bias…

The second and third contributions are from Calla:

Calla is an Indigenous affairs reporter for the Guardian.

It should go without saying that the Guardian is notoriously left-wing and it irks me somewhat to have the views of a journalist at a lefty rag held out as the views of the average person, particularly without a disclaimer of the bias.

On to contribution 4.

I think she self describes quite well.

Clem’s problematic statements and actions are well covered by XYZ and the following website:

Contribution 5 and 6 are from one Nakkiah Lui:

A bit of digging reveals that Nakkiah is the lead actor in the ABC series “Kiki and Kitty”.

Screen Australia describes “Kiki and Kitty” as:

“The adventures of a young, black woman in a big, white world, where her vagina is a big black woman and her best friend.”

Where to begin? I’d like to remind you that your taxes pay for this. I could go on further about how this combination of leftist propaganda, eccentric feminism and racialisation really should not be receiving government funding, but let’s leave it there.

Putting aside those elements, the infuriating thing is that this lady clearly has a lot of connections at the ABC due to her show, so how amazingly convenient that the ABC just happened to pick her and these people to receive the increased exposure from being included in the “moment”. Couldn’t be some sort of clique helping each other out, right?

Next up.

Benjamin Law is the writer of the SBS series “The Family Law”, (another tax payer funded, would-be celebrity…) who is perhaps most famous for tweeting in August 2017, “Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-fuck all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system”.

Hmmm, so far all of the contributors seem to be leftist cultural influencers (or at least people attempting to be), but lets keep going:

Another guardian writer! Wow, I hope the ABC invoices the guardian for this sort of exposure.

Jessica appears to be just an author trying to build a profile, so once again I hope the ABC invoices her for the exposure, but this particular tweet was “problematic”…

Hmmm, to me this seems to be implying that she believes white women should be held responsible for Trump. Seems like a gross generalization and perhaps a little prejudiced.

Anyway, moving on.

Tweeted the following:

A lot of gold in this particular image, my favorite parts were “Pay the rent” and “Don’t Dance”.


Luke has an interesting website blog, I am going to cherry pick for maximum outrage, feel free to read the whole thing if you can be bothered:

I have groped women in social situations inappropriately and without invite.
I have ‘spanked’ female colleagues without invite.
I have taken part in lude and sexually inappropriate conversations about female friends, colleagues and comrades.
I have secretly and not-so-secretly ogled countless women.
I have chosen my train seat based on the best view of an attractive woman.
I have stolen possibly unwelcome brushes-of-the-hand from female service people I found attractive.
I have ‘wolf-whistled’ at women out of the car window.
I have muttered “woah she’s hot” with other men as a woman walked by.
I have ‘read’ porno-mags in the construction site lunch-room.
I have shared and downloaded leaked celebrity nudes, etc.
I have given sleazy winks.
I have ignored totally inappropriate conversation about female colleagues by male colleagues in the workplace, to ‘save myself the hassle’ and sometimes to ‘keep’ my job.
I have ignored and not reported inappropriate sexual advances toward women in the workplace.
I have ignored men taking advantage of positions of power both in the workplace and in other social environments to sleaze on to women (esp younger women).
I have witnessed WAY TOO MANY men try force their way into a woman’s night.
I have witnessed WAY TOO MANY men try take advantage of vulnerable women.
I have witnessed WAY TOO MANY men try take advantage of intoxicated women.

“But the thing I am most ashamed of is: I have led girls on (when I was a teen), just for the intimacy and personal pleasure.

“One particular girl I actually loved, but was too immature to recognise it at the time – until it was too late – and we were both left broken hearted.”

Is it problematic that he thinks that leading a girl on in a relationship is worse than the literal sexual harrassment/assault he admits to earlier in the segment. Not very enlightened Trout.

Also, don’t unironically use the term “comrade”, as the communists of yore would be embarrassed by the association.

Moving on to our next contributor

Another would be cultural influencer.


This young person tweeted the following:

Colonial terrorist? That’s no way to describe the man who paved the way for this area of the world to become a first world nation. But let’s keep moving, leftists are rarely ever particularly grateful.

Jada is a writer for “Cleverman”, another ABC program. Cleverman is described as follows:

“In the near-future, an ancient species of superhumans from the Aboriginal Dreaming known as the Hairypeople battle for survival in a world that persecutes and exploits them with the ultimate goal of wiping them from the earth. Their only hope for the future comes in the form of a young and troubled Gumbaynggirr man named Koen who has reluctantly become a Cleverman, a mythical community leader with unique powers and a special connection between the present and the Dreaming, after the passing of his uncle.”

The Sydney Morning Herald review included the following:

“The Hairies – classed as “sub-humans” by some, hunted by the authorities, kept in detention centres far from the public eye – are clearly a substitute for asylum seekers. The Containment Authority that rounds them up is the show’s Border Force.

“Perhaps the fact they share skin colour and facial characteristics with the Aboriginal inhabitants of The Zone (a segregated and walled area in the show’s version of Redfern, though it plays more like the Gaza Strip) is presumably meant to suggest they are human just like us. Even if, technically speaking, they’re not human at all. Never mind that some white Australians still struggle to accept that Aborigines are themselves human, a tension the show barely acknowledges, which is both a positive and a negative.”

You know that if the Sydney Morning Herald is calling a tv show out for being too obvious with it’s political agenda, that it is about as unsubtle as a bull in a china shop, bias-wise.

So all in all, would you agree that this particular collection of tweets meets the pub test of just being a group of average punters having their say? Or is it just a bunch of lefties all agreeing with each other?

Because if it is the latter, then isn’t it a little bit sneaky, a little bit dishonest for the ABC’s “moments” to summarize them as “People” and not say “Left wing activists and journos”?

Whilst looking into the tweets of these contributors I noticed that they all seem to re-tweet each other, forming an eternal Leftist circle jerk. I hope you’ll forgive such a crude term, but truly if we could ever harness the Leftist circle jerk we would have infinite renewable energy.