It’s 11min55sec and tops the RNZ audio playback list this weekend. I heard it while making coffee live as it aired just after the 8am news bulletin on Friday. It seemed long, unhurried; and untypically amicable. You know what I mean. Here we go.
Hill, phraseology constrained, faking normality for an unsuspecting guest. Rundown of the legal action so far.
Hill: Kia ora.
PP: (inaudible – was it good morning?)
A can-you-hear-me back and forth. Normalising or heightening the tension, not sure. As soon as PP confirms the line is clear Hill is in instantly with a can you confirm this uncomfortable fact scenario but she has an uncharacteristicly cheery tone. The security contractor pulled out and she’s out $10k. The poor Pommy poppet. Hill’s irregular rising inflection on the question was smirking sarcasm, ah, of course, it wasn’t going to be anything else. PP was laughing under the end of the question.
She starts on her mandatory must’n grumble English grumble, but surprises by taking it straight into a ‘this is what you get when’ scenario bringing it right back to her own talking point: ‘it’s staggering that people won’t protect women.’ Bang – the key message, or is that camoflage – deployed within the first few seconds of the exchange. Parries the gloat into a cloak of victimhood. She appears savvy.
Hill not happy to let the competition have the point by just breezely conceding, no, she doesn’t want to let that rest, it was the trump card to be played so worth a double down. Hill attempts to draw a dire picture of our collective imagination – oh you mean you’ve lost $10k to the security company? Said in hope. PP continues to half laugh it off, no, she doesn’t intend to play that game. No, she hasn’t lost any money, and they pulled out because of hateful media coverage in Australia. She is serving them straight back each time.
The impression from the outset is a projection of a calm perseverance as a set upon person, as the voice of reason who will not and cannot be silenced, relentlessly on message. At this point I am wondering if PP is a ‘feminist’ or not. Is her message simply her own Blonde accented shit takes on high rotate as an ego wank or is she or was she ever a bone fide feminist crusader? These are genuine questions. I don’t choose to follow what this person does nor have I been exposed to her existence before seeing her rally with the black shirted neo-nazis in Melbourne last week parading and saluting on the steps of the Victorian Parliament Buildings as police held crowds back to allow them to do so. It was surreal. I bet most of the RNZ audience hadn’t a clue about the genitally obsessed grift influencer before this fascist outbreak. Is any of this feminism?
So ten more minutes of a passive aggressive female verbal tango: an interview between a feminist who is an outright man-hating misandarist on the one hand and Posie Parker on the other. Joy. How’s that coffee coming along – I’m going to put a bit of Hazelnut in the plunger for that gourmet flavour, you know. Where else on the dial but RNZ National will you find two middle-aged British women competing as to who hates men and their yucky penises the most? You won’t find that anywhere else.
Hill still on about the money. PP sighs, verbal shrug, ok lets go there, Hill clearly won’t leave it alone, so she explains it will cost exponentially more to hire security, then sharply turns it back to outrage that poor women will have to pay more just to have free speech. Hard on that message and a more explicit appeal to victimhood. Hill being the other cat in the sack has another swipe.
Hill: what lies? Why did you leave Australia?
PP: who I have connections with.
And she shifts seemlessly into: this always happens to women who speak out. Victim overdrive. Hill interrupts: you are referring to the last rally and the Nazi salutes. She is pouting as she draws out the last word no doubt, creating a linger where the audience is forced to relive the fascist spectre. PP into a denial, a horrendous lie, a horrendous, horrible, shameful this and that. Every adjective is superlative. She is sounding awfully thin-skinned for someone whose last romp before Pauline Hanson had been with the Nazi Party of Victoria.
PP:…and especially when we speak about our rights. Men in dresses, particularly men in dresses…
Hill interrupts: I’ve never seen Nazi men at a feminist rally except to oppose it.
Hill asks why were they supporting her, and a to and fro until we get down to what ‘the debate’ is supposedly about if we treat the Nazis as a clown side-show.
Hill: You are an opponent of trans men!?
PP: I oppose men in womens’ spaces.
And as soon as she said that the real debate began. We were almost four minutes in, but hey. When she said that it became about women and safe spaces. Is space a childrens’ storytime/drag entertainment in the library, is space the platform to speak or publish, is space a sportsfield, a competition. How will this be answered? Very conventionally as it turned out.
Running a women and their feelings argument has a force that can cut across ideology. Some of it sounded reasonable, some of it sounded like she was molested by an 7 foot tranny, counselling unsuccessful, notes include reflex stabs when cornered, nightmare scream twitching. It sounded personal, but she never offered anything other than this hypothecated helter skelter scenario of swarms of cross dressing degenerates plotting a bestial attack, as they lurk in the bromeliads waiting for their opportunity to defile the always popular girls Saturday brunch at the garden centre. She was challenged. Ahh, she said, but it only takes one. One. n=1. Trigger threshholds don’t get lower than that.
At this point I become aware of the social class situation. Both are English, but Hill is middle class and PP sounds working class and as the interview continues down an orthodox pathway and her pleadings become more pathetic my opinion is formed that she is thick – and yes quite possibly in part because of the accent, but really some of the dots she was joining were random.
‘Catastrophising’ becomes a rubric and her paranoiac state emerges as the salient worked over the last half of the interview – it struck a nerve when Hill introduced it and finding it tender drilled down on it like it was Marathon Man and it wasn’t looking at all safe.
Coffee with a bit of cream is just something else, isn’t it.
The real handbag blows to PP’s intellectual credentials were self inflicted. She asks Hill does she know which billionaires are funding trans ideology? Hill shoots back: no, how many, tell me more. At this point PP fumbles, flails, it was a bluff, she doesn’t know her stuff. The last person you want to try that nonsense with, oh dear. It goes as it sounds like it went. With three minutes to go Hill has the other arm wrestler pinned, it is over. Hill laughs, mockingly, in derision, openly contemptuous at this point, oh sure Hill says, you go for it. And she did go for it, basically uninterrupted until the end. The more she spoke the faster her IQ score slid. You have to be a hundy to face Hill and it was no contest.