Posted in Virtue signal

Who is ’a pariah state’, really?

Only just a couple of months ago, Russia President Vladimir Putin said on 23 Dec 2021: “I adhere to that traditional approach that a woman is a woman and a man is a man, a mother is a mother, a father is a father.”

Unlike in the Woke, Woke West where they disagree even on biological facts that a boy is a boy, a girl is a girl, and both genders should have separate bathrooms.

To the West’s ever increasing gender obscurantism, Putin rejoined: “I hope that our society has the internal moral protection dictated by the traditional religious denominations of the Russian Federation”.

Putin also blasted wokeism considering it a radical menace, slammed Critical Race Theory as well as pinpointing the politically correct madness of calling pregnant women “birthing people” — see 22 Oct 2021 report below.

The Biden administration, on the other hand, has embraced CRT and endorsed the woke term “birthing people” to replace the word ‘mother’.

Aside from his strenuous objection to the cult of gender fluidity, Putin also took a strong stand against cancel culture.

A couple of days ago, a Russian woman suffered cancel culture at the hands of a ‘Europe editor’ (his job title) on live TV.

The woman is Natalya Narochnitskaya, a Russian former MP and diplomat. The television presenter is Matt Frei, Channel 4’s foreign correspondent presently stationed in Ukraine. (Channel 4 is a British broastcaster.)

Matt Frei is typical of the bullying and virtue signalling we have come to expect from liberal whites, and he canceled Natalya Narochnitskaya on air.

Their six-minute train wreck ‘interview’ can be found in the YouTube below. Relevant segment begins at minute 8:46.

Western media’s double standards

In the video, we see Matt exhibiting the jingoism of Western breathless war reporting. This style has many fans and cheerleaders. They’re a tribe.

The Russians are a separate tribe. Russia vs Nato is a war of tribes and of civilizational values.

On camera, Natalya opens by trying to say something about what has happened the last eight years to Russian speakers in Donetsk, Ukraine.

Matt immediately cuts her off, firing his first salvo: “As a mother or perhaps a grandmother, I just ask you: Do you have any sympathy when a six-year-old girl is killed by shells?”

Now imagine if a reporter were ever to ask Jill Biden: “Do you have any sympathy when seven children in Kabul are killed by drone strike?”

I’m referring to the family of Afghan aid worker Zemari Ahmadi killed on 29 Aug 2021. During their troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, an American drone had deliberately dropped a Hellfire missile on Zemari‘s targeted car.

Or would a reporter ask US Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “Are you appalled that a three-year-old Afghan child – her name was Malika and she was the daughter of Emal Ahmadi (Emal is brother of the above Zemari) – are you, sir, appalled that Malika was blown to bits by your drones raining hellfire?

Channel 4’s Matt had introduced his clip as follows: “We spoke to former Russian MP and diplomat, Natalya Narochnitskaya. I asked her how appalled she is by what we are witnessing in Ukraine right now”.

No, Matt did not ‘speak’ to Natalya. He subjected her to an appallingly rude harangue.

About Matt’s aforementioned bombshell ‘question’. Certainly no Western reporter would frame any query in such a way to Jill Biden or Antony Blinken.

Yet Matt felt completely justified to throw his Molotov cocktails again and again at Natalya.

BELOW: Matt Frei almost succeeds in subduing the smirk on his face

Not allowing a guest to talk

In the video, we can see that Matt keeps cutting off Natalya.

Furthermore, demanding a ‘Yes or No’ answer speaks of the bankruptcy in his approach as an adversarial interviewer.

Matt: “Natalya, let’s not talk about Donetsk. Let me ask you this very simply — ‘Are there Ukrainian tanks in Moscow right now or St Petersburg, shelling Russian civilians, yes or no?”

He lobs a decidedly dead-end ‘question’ which does not and indeed cannot draw any meaningful response from Natalya.

Granted, Natalya seems like an insider trotting out the Putin government line.

Still, Matt’s impression of the Just-Answer-‘Yes or No’-if-you-please’ courtroom type of badgering is not genuine pushback to whatever valid (or invalid) points raised by Natalya.

Even so, Natalya gamely tries to reply Matt’s plainly rhetorical question asking whether Moscow is being shelled.

As she speaks, he predictably interjects: “Forget Donetsk for a moment”.

Matt: ”You keep talking about the past. Let’s talk about the present, the here and now.”

The thing is Natalya has been I-N-V-I-T-E-D to appear on this British programme. By repeatedly talking over Natalya, Matt is rendering her appearance on the show a waste of our time.

His constant curt interruptions smack of the Nato viewpoint attempting to drown out the rival Russian viewpoint because the West controls media and Big Tech.

Matt is not allowing the space for Natalya to make her case — as if he is afraid she might come across as talking rationally.

My takeaway from their heated exchange is that Channel 4 (they hired Matt after all) does not believe in allowing the Marketplace of Ideas to operate freely.

A ‘question’ that’s not a question

Matt caps his display of virtue signalling with the following jaw dropper.

Matt: “My final question to you, Natalya, is how does it feel to be a citizen of a pariah state?”

If you’re one of the unwoke, Matt’s insulting ‘question’ will leave you speechless.

For members of the woke club, it’s a matter of a lack of self awareness. When it comes to attacking other countries, the Sheriff (USA) and Deputy Sheriff (the UK) have been much more egregious than Russia.

So who is Matt to call anybody “a citizen of a pariah state”. But Natalya still gives him back.

And Matt again cuts her off by pontificating how Natalya is sitting comfortably in her study in Moscow while Ukrainians are being killed in the war zone.

Segueing from this low parting shot, Matt ends the interview by telling the audience “I’m going to leave it there”.

When Natalya tries to get in a last word, Matt snaps in a raised voice: “This interview is now over. It is now over. Thank you.”

In media war, West are the aggressors

Matt misused and abused the time that his guest – invited by Channel 4 – spent on the show.

Hullo. Viewers tuning in might want actually to listen to a knowing former Russian MP articulate the Ukraine situation. Remember the old adage ‘There are two sides to a story’.

The English-language media is already super overloaded with Nato-aligned propaganda. And here is a Russian woman who speaks good English. Her accessibility provides us a rare chance to hear from the other side.

But because of Matt’s continuous and unproductive hectoring, the interview failed to tease out any useful insight from Natalya.

In fact, the whole fiasco was beyond bad journalism. It was reflective of woke attitudes. Putin gets it. And now this Russian former MP has a taste of it firsthand.


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

2 thoughts on “Who is ’a pariah state’, really?

  1. in ccpland and russia media, one might not even have the chance to talk, and dissenter is detained, in fact msia also detain dissenter emulate komunis especially during umno era, unless one live in australia so umno cant touch you.

    ccp forum is full of sexies ridiculous talk of ukrainian woman after the war start, similar to uncle ak envious talk of spore playboy loving of russian lady, and like how many muslim here gratification of underage girl.

    many american never cease to talk about american exceptionalism in all major media just to tell the world that american could be as bad as any authoritarian and dictatorship that invade others, even though the usa govt did this with un resolution which ccpland and russian never oppose, thats american freedom to express, so what aggressor are you talking about?

    this woke or no woke is american choice, thats their freedom with no intervention from authority, who are you to tell them what is right or wrong?

    you start to sound like that australia hypo, or worst lim kit siang.

  2. The moniker for a country or a race is entirely the creation of propagandists/dedicated journalists with motives. Here are some common examples eg Hitler’s Germany, Tojo Land, Land of the Rising Sun, Home of the Brave or Freedom, Mother of all Parliaments, Mother India, Free Thailand, Or Lee Kuan Yew’s creations eg. the Rugged Society, the Land which hits above its size etc. Or Indonesia’s apt description of tiny Singapore eg the little Red Dot. Many States in South America, Africa and Asia are labelled as failed States. To label a country ‘pariah’, it is entirely self-serving just because that country is not in one’s political system but in another. It’s just name-calling by politicians anywhere. The Chinese are commonly called Chinamen in the West. Most consider this an insult. But I consider being called a Chinaman is a source of pride because who can be a Chinaman ? It is just a figure of speech like we call those living in Yorkshire, Yorkshiremen, in Wales, Welshmen, in England, Englishmen or Scotland, Scotsmen etc. History is the finest arbiter of the Truth like some latecomers call others ‘pendatang’ without knowing their own roots. At the end of the day, a rose is a rose, a rose, by any other name.

Comments are closed.