FRAMING THE DISCOURSE: PIERS MORGAN VS MUNROE BERGDORF

Piers Morgan is someone I despise. He could be considered a Tony Blair of the media: someone who constantly fakes emotion and can argue passionately for one proposition and a few days later argue equally passionately for the counter-proposition. He is symptomatic of the British bourgeoisie: mealy-mouthed and insincere, his only morality being his bank balance and his deference to whatever elite is in power. Yet he is even more dishonest than this obvious observation suggests. Furthermore, Morgan is typical of the groupthink inherent in today's media, where all discourse is framed to manipulate public opinion.

Fake toughness, fake arguments

Let us take the video below: it is Morgan ostensibly arguing heatedly with Munroe Bergdorf, a half-caste man who has had cosmetic surgery to look like a woman and whom the global cosmetics conglomerate L'Oréal employed as a model for his allegedly genderless, raceless, rootless Nietzschean 'last man' status. Bergdorf was then sacked by L'Oréal for, unsurprisingly, pouring out his hatred for white heterosexual males. At the end of the day, L'Oréal still has to turn a profit and cannot afford to alienate many customers who would find Bergdorf's views abhorrent, despite the corporate culture of L'Oréal in all probability subscribing to this ideology of hatred borne of the New Left.

Bergdorf wrapped his hatred in the usual New Left packaging we have now become accustomed to, that of prefabricated sociological slogans and phrases, merely repeated with more emphasis when challenged, as though the challenger never understood the first time around. Morgan does his usual obnoxious routine of shouting his opponent down with vacuous appeals to a morality to which neither his opponent nor his masters subscribe:

To sum up Bergdorf's disingenous arguments about why he claims not to hate Whites, here are the critical paragraphs from his article for The Metro:

 “When I stated that ‘all white people are racist’, I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a SYSTEM rooted in white supremacy – designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are SOCIALISED to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist.

 "We also live in a society where men are SOCIALISED to be sexist. Women are SOCIALISED to be submissive. Gay people are SOCIALISED to be ashamed of their sexuality due to heterosexual people’s homophobia. Cisgender people are SOCIALISED to be transphobic."

Firstly, it ought to be mentioned that Bergdorf's original Facebook post that got him sacked in the first place contradicts his new tack, proving him to be as dishonest as his modified physical form:

 Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people... Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s***. Come see me when you realise that racism isn't learned, it's inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege. Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth... then we can talk. Until then stay acting shocked about how the world continues to stay f***** at the hands of your ancestors and your heads that remain buried in the sand with hands over your ears.

So what is it? Is it learned or not learned? Is it inherited and by what means? He mentions the inheritance of privilege, but were the white children who worked in factories workhouses privileged? Did their fathers confer them this privilege through 'the Patriarchy'? Did their fathers themselves acknowledge their privilege when they were trapped down a coal mine after a cave-in? Why then the blanket generalisation if it is not just blind hatred? These people did not even have time to think of Blacks one way or another, but Bergdorf certainly thinks about Whites. Constantly.

The perverse face of hatred

He has to, of course, for his mother is White and the hatred is thus revealing. Racially, he has grown up neither one thing nor another, confused and without an identity that would have given him a sense of who he is. He has grown up with a mother he bears no resemblance to and has hated himself for it. And in hating himself for what he cannot be, he has hated his mother for creating him. And just as he has tried to transform his own body into that of the mother to be more like her, he has projected his hatred outward onto those like her. All the while, the Leftists at Brighton University, where he studied and began his transvesticism, encouraged his hatred, his perversion. And his own privilege as a spoilt middle-class mixed-race, transgender, queer darling of the New Left was never questioned.

This is a side-issue. The real issue is seen in the debate between Bergdorf and Morgan. Or rather it is what is not seen. What is never challenged is the illogic of the Left that Bergdorf's whole argument is based on. For if, as he now says, nothing is intrinsic and everything comes from socialisation, then his whole sexual orientation and gender dysphoria can be dismissed as mere social construct. He has no claim to authenticity, nor does anyone else of the LGBTJQ+ community. As a point of fact, the Left started arguing that the LGBTJQ+ community was 'born this way' around the same time as race became a 'social construct'. 

Also, if men are so privileged, why has Bergdorf tried to transform himself into a woman? Why indeed is it overwhelmingly males who are transforming themselves into pseudo-females? It is because it is masculinity that is discriminated against and males who are under constant social pressure and scrutiny. Bergdorf has sought to escape that. But Piers Morgan will never address such issues, for Piers Morgan is part of the system, part of the theatrical spectacle in which the discourse is kept within certain parameters to keep the masses from thinking outside them.