Spectator Magazine 10 Issues for $10, Then $84.99 Every 13 Issues @ Spectator

141

For those needing some centre right wing commentary.

Don't forget to cancel before they charge full price.

Check out my age and guardian posts today if u need some left wing media deals for the opposite viewpoints.

The truth is out there..somewhere.

Related Stores

Spectator Australia
Spectator Australia

Comments

  • +5

    activating troll mode
    centre right

    • +2

      Maybe mixing up the UK Spectator, which could reasonably be described as the center of the right. In AU the mag has veered off right wards in a search for relevancy.

    • +1

      Yep, Sky After Dark in print format.

  • Pass.

  • +2

    I did this deal last time out of let's say morbid curiousity, and it's pretty lacklustre. I think even Sky News After Dark consumers would be disappointed, frankly.

    Most of the "Aussie" content is basically the cover art and the front page opinion column and somehow despite having time to compose the pieces and an editor, it comes off like the rambling "wot i reckon" section of the newspaper or the drunk uncle at Christmas bitching about what jokes you can't say any more. After that, it's basically just the European edition - including the actual letters to the editor section which is UK-centric ("Hunt saboteurs are ruining this country, bring back Thatcher").

    The most memorable part was when you don't renew at the 'normal price' you also get a phone call from someone who asks why. The various other magazines I never bothered renewing with never did this (Men's Health, Crochet Madness, Cat Fancier).

    Favourite piece of Australian cover art: A block of cheese being viewed by the most Australian animals, the raccoon, and the headline "Coon-cel culture". Remember all the hysteria about how Coon cheese was going to change its name? Me either, but it's well drawn.

    • you dont have to leave your actual phone number

      • I honestly didn't remember giving it, I suspect Google verrrrrrry helpfully dropped it in there when I clicked on the deal here last time and filled out the online form.

  • -1

    It's off-the-planet conspiracy theories. A once half-decent conservative journal is now a laughing-stock fantasy of extremist nut jobs.

      • +2

        its funny how that media watch guy slammed the wuhan theiry and then recently rather quietly said it may be true.

        • +2

          I’m assuming that by “slam” you mean actually bother to check with the Intelligence community to find out if the Telegraph’s “dossier” was fake? Or are you talking about something else?
          Now that actual potential evidence is available, it is worth considering.

          • +3

            @Plimsol: So let’s get this straight.

            The world has one coronavirus lab and it is situated in China, Wuhan China.

            The world has one outbreak of a new novel coronavirus and the outbreak is situated in China, Wuhan China.

            They blame bats which are not indigenous to the Wuhan area, the closest are a few hundred kilometres away.

            The coronavirus outbreak is just a short distance from the lab.

            China tried desperately to hide details of the outbreak, still do.

            Lab leaks are common.

            Dr Fauci says the USA did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan lab because he doesn’t like the accusers definition of gain-of-function.

            Yet the Lab Leak lab hypothesis was treated as an “off-the-planet conspiracy theory” when in actuality it is almost certainly the most likely cause.

            • +3

              @SamR: Also, bat coronaviruses have never been able to infect human cells until now.

              In January 2020, Major General Chen Wei, a military virologist specializing in biodefence, was sent to the Wuhan lab. At best he was sent to clean up evidence of a leak and at worst, evidence of a biological weapons program. The virologist who escaped China has made some damming allegations against the lab. The doctor who informed the world of the outbreak was threatened with gaol before death from the virus.

              Xi Jinping covered up the virus and caused it to escape. Despite knowing of the virus, they did not stop tourism, causing it to escape to the world. Was that a deliberate act or just gross negligence? More than 1 million deaths world wide thanks to China. The WHO and China condemned Australia who was one of the first countries to close their international border with China.

              The lure of economic benefits and the fear of crippling retaliation from China is what I think stops world leaders from taking action against China. No one wants to take on the regime who is probably the #1 world military power. Plus they have an alliance with Russia.

              The evil intent of Hitler was not realised until too late.

              You won't hear the ABC, SMH, Sunrise, The Project, etc ask questions about the coronavirus origins

          • +1

            @Plimsol: since when do the intelligenge srrvices andwer wuestions from joirnalists

      • +1

        Channel 9-owned SMH are considered "woke" now? Hot take. Lol.

        Woke just seems to be used as an insulting term for any reporting/person/opinon that you don't agree with. Sad for the political discourse in this country - no considered argument or well-made point on the pros/cons of an idea, just labels like "woke" because engagement is hard. The centre is evaoprating.

          • +2

            @m0usju1c3: Why are you stopping at Hegel? Follow the breadcrumbs all the way down and continue to dO yOuR oWn ReSEarCh

            • @CrowReally: Are you that lacking in any substantial response that you resort to insulting my diligence in researching a matter, prior commenting on it?

              You've just portrayed the fault people make, mentioned in Tock's comment, yet you've gone further to even attack someone that is studied somewhat and willing to engage.

              • @m0usju1c3: @m0usju1c3: He's trying to be facetious, hence all the changes in capitalisation when he said the catchphrase "do your own research" to try and make it more obvious.

                Your original comment was interesting but I don't want you looking silly by getting upset over someone making a joke

                • @SpainKing: No, mousejuice.

                  "Studied somewhat and willing to engage" person is the one that starts a discussion with "False. Woke is <wot I reckon>" spoken in a dogmatic way?

                  Get your hand off it. What you said was and is ridiculous (for someone somewhat studied, saying the 1940's term 'woke' is an offshoot from the 1970's critical race theory is somewhat putting the cart before the horse by a few decades).

                  Getting that link wrong and jamming all the other links "which means Marx, which means Hegel, which means.." on with a hand-wave is peak-level redonkulous.

                  People with credible arguments don't use weasel words like these and "It's openly admitted by it's (sic) propagaters (sic)", either. Openly admitted, hey? By all of them, you say. Or some of them? "Some of them have admitted to it, I'm sure", shall we go with that? Even if that were true and provable, so what?

                  Imagine dropping that steaming comment into a discussion and then accusing someone else as lacking a substantial response.

                  Footnotes, for your edu-ma-cation:

                  Woke being from the 1940s: https://theconversation.com/where-woke-came-from-and-why-mar...
                  CRT being from the 1970s: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506735.pdf

                  • @CrowReally: Struck a nerve did I? Now you've put aside the petty capitalisation attack and actually put something up.

                    I'll leave you with one source for all of my claims, which is enough as he has already sourced all of his claims (in the link below).

                    https://newdiscourses.com/

                    I have not found a more thorough, in depth research source for all things Marxism, and you haven't refuted my claim that the root of both CRT and Wokism is from Marxism. You've listed sources to propagate the idea that these ideas are only from the last century, which is false. Many CRT and Woke ideologists quote and claim to be, Marxists. Hell even the founders of BLM claim to be Marxists??

                    • @m0usju1c3: You responded to:

                      Tock saying 'woke is being used as a generic insulting cover-all statement for things the speaker disagrees with' (something I agree with, incidentally)

                      by

                      saying woke isn't that at all, and it's actually an offshoot from CRT (and then a bunch of other word salad, which isn't relevant to Tock's point)

                      Then

                      I replied with evidence that woke pre-dates CRT and absolutely isn't an offshoot from it

                      Now

                      you're deciding it's a great time to deflect and discuss marxism, which neither I nor Tock were discussing.

                      You were wrong originally (see above)
                      You present your 'ideas' terribly (attacks on capitalisation? I remember using 'sic' twice - on your spelling and grammar, was that what you were 'getting at'?)
                      And the ideas you presented also aren't relevant to what we were discussing so, no.
                      That's a Hard Pass from me.

                  • @CrowReally: Well said Crow, saved me having to type out a reply to the (obviously) regurgitated garbage old mate has read somewhere on the net. I am sure I would have been less eloquent however.

                    Familiar type - speak with big words and feigned authority yet have basic grammatical and factual errors throughout. <chef's kiss dot gif>

    • +3

      Are you negging the deal because you disagree with the magazine's politics or because it's not a good deal?

      The former seems like abuse of the voting system and the latter can't be true because 10 issues for $10 clearly is a good deal.

  • +2

    Spectator Magazine

    Do you mean Spctr Magazine ?

  • I bought this magazine out of curiosity at the news agent once. It is nowhere a news magazine. But just a vitriolic garbage who keeps cringing page after page.