Peter FitzSimons: The Gorilla in the Room

16
Peter FitzSimons
Peter FitzSimons

A little while ago Peter FitzSimons, rugby player, Republican and fashion icon, responded to a heavily muscled, thirty-three year old multi-millionaire publicly bullying and shaming a thirteen year old girl from an economically-deprived rural background, with the stunning nuance and sensitivity that has become almost as much his trademark as his faux-piratical scarlet scarf.

His exact words:

“If calling a black man a gorilla and an ape is not racial abuse, what the hell does it take?”

As the loyal readers of XYZ and of lesser writers such as Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt would know, poor Peter’s words have rebounded a little.

In a moment of absent-mindedness, the former Wallaby described a dusky fellow working for the South African cricket team in the same uncomplimentary, simian-related fashion that he so recently decried.

Many seem to be finding much hilarity in the fact that such a sanctimonious ponce and overrated purveyor of poor quality prose has been so skilfully caught in his own snare.

In fact, if he possessed any decency at all, you would expect FitzSimons’ face to now be as red as his headgear. The esteemed XYZ contributor Eh!nonymous expressed his satisfaction at the thought of the storm of excrement surely about to descend on such a well deserved target:

“This could well ruin our bandana-wearing paragon of virtue signalling. Normally I abhor the practice of someone having their life destroyed over an innocent throwaway comment, but FitzSimons has moralised for so long and so irritatingly about this sort of thing that it is going to be kind of amusing to watch the snake eat its own tail…. by the (admittedly sketchy) rules FitzSimons has so carefully laid out, guess what? He’s very much a racist without a doubt, and will soon learn that his piranha-like ideological comrades are fair-weather friends until they smell a drop of blood in the water.”

I’m afraid I must disagree.

Not only has FitzSimons’ visage failed to redden into the slightest semblance a blush, but the bluff buffoon seems genuinely bemused at the very idea that anyone could have taken his words as anything but harmless.

And this is the part that changes this story from one about a not-too-bright oaf inducing chuckles to one that does, and should, induce righteous rage.

FitzSimons is behaving as if he has nothing to fear, because he doesn’t. Unless you read conservative blogs or regularly check for updates on XYZ, there is very little chance you heard about this incident at all.

The only reference the average person would have received about this monumental hypocrisy was if they had the misfortune to read to the very end of Peters’ column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday.

In it, Peter the pirate seems genuinely surprised that anyone could find issue with his statements, and notes how pleased he is that not even the usually ravenous-for-virtue-signalling leftist beasts on Twitter made a peep.

Far from smelling blood in the water, the left has turned its head the other way and completely ignored this faux pas.

And anyone who watched Channel Nine on a Sunday night a week ago or so might understand why.

On one of the channel’s flagship programs, an almost painfully symbolic tableau was played out.

A Channel Nine “journalist” was interviewing Channel Nine Today Show presenter Lisa Wilkinson at her spacious family home, in order to promote her barely-literate knuckle-dragging husband Peters’ new book.

While they stood in the luxurious, scenic, well appointed and no doubt prohibitively expensive backyard, they shot footage of Peter talking about himself while staring narcissistically at his own portrait.

As emblematic a scene I don’t think I’ve seen.

No-one in the establishment was ever going to call out FitzSimons on his gaffe, partially because of the bigotry of low expectations (he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed) but also because as a rich, famous, atheist, Republican leftist married to a journalist he couldn’t be more a part of the establishment if he tried.

When Eddy McGuire (a contentious man often seen by those in high places as a jumped-up Novo Homo) called the Sainted Adam Goodes “King Kong” only a short period after helping to shame the aforementioned young girl in the crowd as the “Face of Australian Racism,” he probably didn’t even lose a single party invitation.

How could it have been otherwise? Eddie McGuire’s ALP connections are so good he got his brother parachuted into a safe seat and his media connections so good they put him in charge of Channel Nine when it should have been obvious he had no idea what he was doing.

FitzSimons is just another example of how if you have connections and the “correct” opinions you can get away with almost anything: gaffes, incompetence or stupidity.

You can even become a best-selling author whilst unable to string more than a few sentences together.

Leftist troglodytes burrowed into humanities faculties across the nation, like the ticks they closely resemble, loving to prattle about “privilege” in our society and how those surrounded by it find it almost impossible to see.

The almost bewildered reaction from the dull, loutish boor with the red rag on his head at the very prospect that anyone might hold him to the standards of the little people, and the complicity of the media establishment in proving him one hundred per cent correct in his assumption, shows us that the ivory tower academics might have accidentally stumbled across a point.

Unless you are wealthy, comfortable and possessing of the correct opinions, you are in the eyes of our betters, nothing more than a peasant. The rules are set to govern you, not them.

We exist to be ground underneath the wheels of the modern world, our faces driven into the mud as they ride in comfort above.

The truth of this fact is written across Peter FitzSimons’ senseless, daft, imbecilic and uncomprehending face for all to see.

And if that doesn’t fill you with anger and rage, you haven’t been paying attention.