I shouldn’t be writing this. I’m short of time. I have a heap of other articles to put up from other contributors and our last article was on the same subject.

Last Monday’s Q and A was so eye poppingly subversive, however, that I think it really needs a closer look.

The section in question was when a “guest” asked a question, “when is aggression and violence a better option than strong arguments, assertiveness and modelling the behaviour you expect of others?”

The first response came from Ashton Applewhite who is a female American anti-ageism campaigner. Her immediate answer was that we should resort to violence “when none of that other stuff works.”

She didn’t elaborate on that answer and by the smug look on her face, she seemed to assume that everyone knew what she was talking about. Judging by the reverential silence, it seems that everyone in the studio did.

I wish someone would explain it to deplorables like me. If there is a free pass for full scale societal violence, I personally, would like a rather more detailed explanation of the reason. A self-satisfied smile or a nod and a wink just isn’t enough.

The second woman to wade in was an Egyptian-American journalist with dyed red hair called Mona Eltahawy. Mona’s primary goal is to “Make the patriarchy fear feminists.” Once again, this mythical “Patriarchy” was not explained or defined.

Who are they? What are they? Where are they? I’d love to smash them too if they actually exist.

They’ve been handing out all this male privilege, and I didn’t get a damned thing.

Mona informed us that whilst men are killing and raping women, that it should be justified (presumably for mobs of righteous feminists) to go out and kill rapists.

She doesn’t get bogged down in arguments about the presumption of innocence, jury trials or any of those other pesky “Patriarchal” privileges.

I got the impression that the word of a member of the “sisterhood” would have been good enough for Mona. After all, she was opposed to the police, prison sentences and the state monopoly of violence (ie an actual bona fide judicial system).

Mona was confident that these raging, unaccountable lynch mobs would lead to “a world where I’m not raped and murdered.” Good luck with that one Mona.

Towards the end of her rant, she did give a pretty large hint as to who “The Patriarchy” isn’t.

She spoke of “a Hierarchy of safety,” which included “obviously people of colour.” Well obviously people of colour Mona. “The Patriarchy” doesn’t include “people of colour.”

Probably, that’s why she left Egypt – that bastion of women’s rights – to lecture Australian and American men on how to behave towards women.

Jess Hill was then brought into the discussion. Jess was an author of a book about domestic abuse (towards women I guess). She justified violence by pointing out that the original suffragettes were violent – and would have been more so had not WW1 broken out.

Then Ashton Applewhite hopped back in to justify violence by equivocating it to a “slave rebellion.”

How this overprivileged woman feels that the situation of Western women today is in any way comparable to that of a slave is entirely beyond me.

The last one to comment on the idea of embracing violence was Nayuka Gorrie. A writer who identifies as Aboriginal and Queer. I am not sure of her ancestry.

She looks quite pale but maybe that was the studio lights. However, she identifies as Aboriginal rather than a “coloniser” and considers Australia a colony and her people to be “living in a state of duress.”

She said that Aboriginal people were getting violence from many systems and also interpersonally – whatever that means.

She also said that there isn’t a level playing field (blacks are victims) and wondered what the tipping point would be before people start burning stuff.

“I look forward to it” she said enthusiastically. She also said that the colonisers (white men) don’t seem to have any morality. Gorrie relayed a quote that no one ever got what they wanted by appealing to the moral conscience of their oppressor.

That is untrue of course. Ghandi did just that. He was the only person in history mind you, because he was appealing to White Englishmen.

The women on the panel articulated the belief that we should resort to violence when strong arguments, assertiveness and good behaviour don’t work.

The Cambridge dictionary defines the word incite as follows:

to encourage someone to do or feel something unpleasant or violent: it gives the following example:

She incited racial hatred by distributing anti-Semitic leaflets.

By my understanding, this panel were inciting radical political action which included extreme violence, murder and arson until such time that they get what they want.

Unfortunately, what they want is either unspecified, ill-defined or impossible and seems to change all the time.

A tiny minority of men are killing and raping women just as a tiny minority of women kill men. The women on the panel claimed that extra Judicial killing is justified until we do the impossible and stop all rape and murder of women for an unspecified time.

Another justification for this violence is a mythical “Patriarchy” which doesn’t even exist.

They want to take away the police, empty the prisons, and end the state monopoly on violence, handing it to lynch mobs instead.

The questioner thought this was “pretty good.”

They justified violence because suffragettes used violence historically, implying that it was therefore OK for feminists today to do so.

They also justified violence due to its supposed equivalence to a slave rebellion.

They justified arson because Aboriginal people were getting violence from “systems” and supposedly missing out.

They accused all Whites of being colonisers and denied that we have any morality whatsoever which is horrifically racist.

Fran Kelly then smiled and described the panel as a group of “strong women.”

The ABC costs the taxpayers of Australia (the majority of whom are white males) $1billion every year.

For this money, they provide a service which has always been available for free from multiple privately run networks.

The justification for this huge cash grab is that the ABC is needed to promote “Australian values.” Yet the values promoted on this show were radical, political revolutionary values which incited people to extreme radical revolutionary behavior.

The rhetoric used had no factual basis and was rabble rousing for the most antisocial behaviour imaginable.

Whilst this is the most extreme example I have seen; it is in line with a radical Leftist agenda which has been prevalent at the ABC for over a decade.

The question is, how do we put a stop to it. The answer is quite simple. Ita Buttrose must go.

She is the head of a billion dollar a year media company. This is a very responsible position and she is extremely well paid for what she does.

She bears ultimate responsibility for the messages which are put out by the ABC.

It is not like this is a sudden or unexpected occurrence. This behaviour has part of a pattern of radical political messages being broadcast, in particular by Q and A.

Ita has allowed this to continue and build under her oversight. The panel members were known for radical political views which are completely at odds with Australian values of fairness, non-violence and moderation.

The audience members appeared to be selected for their sympathy to this radical agenda. The questions were known in advance and the response of the panellists was hardly surprising given their well-known views.

The moderator, Fran Kelly, did nothing to pull these women back and seemed if anything, to be encouraging them.

No media manager in his right mind would have allowed this show to be aired on a public network. Clearly, Ita Buttrose is not up to the job of running our National Broadcaster. She needs to be replaced immediately.

Her contract should have a clause allowing for termination in the event of gross negligence. If not, then her replacement’s contract must have.

Ita’s removal will send a powerful message to whomever is in charge of the ABC in future. They must know that this unacceptable.

The ABC claims that Q and A aims “to create a discussion that is constructive, that reflects a diverse range of views and that provides a safe environment where people can respectfully discuss their differences.”

Instead, it is providing a radical and toxic, far Left echo chamber which is inciting violence and advocating for the breakdown of society.

Ita Buttrose has allowed this to happen and must be sacked. She is not fit for such a responsible position. Contact your MP. Write to Communications Minister Paul Fletcher at Suite 1, Level 2, 280 Pacific Highway, Lindfield, NSW, 2070 or phone him on (02) 9465 3950. Let the Prime Minister know too.

Start a petition, protest outside the ABC offices, make a noise. If you are waiting for someone else to do it, it won’t get done.

It is about time that we took back OUR ABC and demanded programming which reflects the traditional Australian Nation which created and sustains it.