Vox culturati

Not even a broken link to Vox. You can look for it yourself, but I’ve tried to save you the anguish. The Vox author is the aptly first-named Fabiola Cineas. Note to her parents: Fabulosa would have been perfect.

I try to keep a finger in the ground and an ear to the wind to measure the mutterings of the sinister fringe, and I just found a bit at Vox that tells me they continue to be serious about ginning up the “Ma’Khia called 911” victim-shifting nano-story. It really matters to them.

I took a look at why this hypothetical is quite improbable here, on April 28.

Fabulosa writes:

Even after it was discovered that Bryant was living in foster care, that she was in the middle of a fight with older women when police arrived, and that she was allegedly the one who summoned the police for help, people — some of the same people who called for justice in Floyd’s case — used police talking points to justify the four bullets that Reardon unloaded into Bryant’s chest. She was brandishing a knife, many pointed out, which meant the other Black women needed to be protected.

Crisis response experts noted, however, that deescalation tactics — like commanding Bryant to drop the weapon, physically getting between the women, or simply communicating with her — could have kept everyone alive. In many recorded encounters between the police and white people carrying weapons, for instance, officers didn’t shoot first or even reach for their guns — they successfully managed to peacefully apprehend the suspect.

Even after it was discovered that Bryant was living in foster care
“Even after…” – was the cop supposed to factor this into his decision before preventing a murder? … ‘Oh, maybe she’s a foster child about to knife someone? That’s different!’

“it was discovered”? Someone was trying to hide it? Foster care is an excuse for being murderously out of control? If so, her father’s arrests for nonsupport would be relevant.

she was in the middle of a fight with older women when police arrived
There was no physical fight at the time the police arrived. No danger to Ma’Khia until she charged down the driveway and initiated one. The older women were barely out of their teens, and the one she was shot in the process of stabbing was half Ma’Khia’s size.

she was allegedly the one who summoned the police for help
Did Ma’Khia call 911 because she thought the police would be accomplices in a stabbing?

‘Alleged’ by a couple of twitter loons and Joy Reid, among other deranged fringe journalists. Who made that call is pure speculation. NO INFORMATION has been released, and would probably depend on voice print comparison to resolve. This is just the SJWs quoting each other as sources.

What we do know points entirely against the idea Ma’Khia called the cops just in time watch her attempted murder.

She was brandishing a knife, many pointed out, which meant the other Black women needed to be protected.
You disagree? Black women being attacked by black girls twice their size are not to be protected?

deescalation tactics — like commanding Bryant to drop the weapon
Shouting “Get down! Get down!… Get down! Get down!” wasn’t good enough. He had to say “Drop the knife,” or it doesn’t count.

physically getting between the women
The cop tried to get between the first woman attacked and Ma’Kihia. Ma’Khia instantly went after the second woman. While Ma’Khia’s father was kicking the first.

simply communicating with her
Somehow there is a different, simpler, communication method than shouting “Get down!,” multiple times. A calm, cool thinking solution would be preferred. Yes, but you wouldn’t write such tripe if you had watched the video. Since I’m sure Ms Fabulosa did watch it, I call her screed “racism as a service.”

In many recorded encounters between the police and white people carrying weapons, for instance, officers didn’t shoot first or even reach for their guns
Who can doubt it? It’s also true that “in many recorded encounters” between the police and black people carrying weapons… officers didn’t “shoot first.” Whatever the hell “shoot first” means in this case. In 9 seconds shooting after 5 wouldn’t be “first.”

It’s even true that in encounters between black police and black subjects, at least as many unarmed black subjects are shot as by white police. This link is NPR, and it goes out of its way to make a case that the US is nonetheless a racist country. They report. You decide if that conclusion is reached by reasoning backwards from it. Like the Vox story.

Fabulosa is pretty good at her avocation. Whenever I see her name going forward I will think of Leni Riefenstahl.

Liberal

The ruination of the word in the U.S. arguably started around 1913 with a President openly hostile to a Constitutional Republic. A dedicated racist who RE-segregated the Federal civil service, and an oligarch who bypassed the Bill of Rights with the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918; Woodrow Wilson.

His ideas picked up steam in 1932. That’s when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was nudging the Enlightenment political definition of Liberal, “a belief in individual liberty,” toward a phrase made popular by another collectivist snollygoster: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

FDR admired the man who uttered it: “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman’
Henry Wallace, New Frontiers, p. 31.

That admirable gentleman was Benito Mussolini, and it’s no wonder FDR was interested. Benito put the principles of the New Deal more plainly than FDR dared:

“The … State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.”
-Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore. p 41.

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management.
-Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers pp. 135-136

Do you detect any similar policy tendencies in current American Maim Scream Media™ headlines, or in Biden executive orders?

Il Duce’s characterizations are authoritative. So, China, among many others, is clearly a fascist state. It may not surprise you that Mussolini was a socialist before he took up the fascist cause, and you may be forgiven if you wonder whether fascism was just a way to avoid the word “nationalization.”

By the time FDR took office there were many Americans who had good things to say about Benito Mussolini’s fascism. Here’s a link to the Leftist WaPo, a site your Progressive frenemies cannot easily dismiss. It manages to bash Trump, always a Progressive treat, and lists many prominent American Mussolini enthusiasts. The author manages to get through the whole thing while never mentioning FDR, and includes this hilarity:

Mussolini’s powerful handlers tapped into widespread misgivings about the domestic cost of Wilson-style democracy and growing anxieties about gender equality by pitching Mussolini as a strong male leader with a nationalistic brand of effective governance.

‘Handlers’? Ha. You want handlers? Look up Edith Wilson in the context of Woodrow’s stroke, and think about Jill Biden. The 25th Amendment had to wait until 1967 to be added to the Constitution, and until 2020 to be part of Democrat election strategy.

‘Wilson-style democracy’? Wilson was an oligarchist.

‘Misgivings’? Ha, ha. While our Democrats were making Henry Wallace FDR’s Veep?

Implied misogyny’? Ha, ha, ha. The Italians were worried their leader didn’t respect women, while FDR was … well, not worried about it:

“Franklin deserved a good time,” Alice Longworth, a confidante of FDR, once said. “He was married to Eleanor.”

‘Gender equality’? A construct beyond the imagination of Italians or Americans of the time. In 1932 “gender” was rightly regarded as a feature of some Romance languages, not a social justice crusade necessitating a redefinition of “sex.”

The Great Depression helped FDR get away with the New Deal, and when WWII came along to actually end the Depression (FDR had prolonged it), it only reinforced FDR’s power to shift the country to acceptance of the “dollar a year man” authoritarian bureaucracy. It’s not so cheap anymore.

We still see this autocratic urge expressed through redefinition today. The word “science” used to mean “falsifiable,” for example. Now it means whatever the consensus of government dependent boffins come up with. From “climate change” to lockdowns and mask mandates. From denials of biological sex to outcome equality. For example:
Translating Social Justice Newspeak – Law & Liberty
Liberals Redefine Words

Worth reading, but both neglect some important redefinitions. “Democracy,” for example.

I don’t know when that started, but the false premise is that the United States is a Democracy rather than a Constitutional Republic (Thanks, Woodrow.). Now Democracy “belongs” to Democrats, and you aren’t part of that if you object to voting without regard to legality, dislike open borders, believe sex is binary, think the Second Amendment applies to individuals, or get grumpy when someone calls you a murderer for not wearing 2 masks. Here’s a 4 minute video worth watching for how the Democrats view “Our” Democracy.
WSJ Opinion: The Progressive Push to Redefine ‘Our Democracy’

Another important word that’s been redefined is “Capitalism.” It’s depressing how many people describe China’s economic system as capitalist. If you look at Mussolini’s definitions, China is fascist. In America, it’s fashionable for Progressives to blame “free market failures” for botched government interventions. American corporatism pays homage to the blustering Italian, and is familial with the Chinese Communists.

What words mean matters. Those who make the changing of meaning their tactic for gaining political advantage are characters in 1984.

Moral insolvency? Meet reputation.

I am an admirer of Jordan Peterson since 2017, when he came to my attention as a free speech advocate. This will be the 38th time I’ve used the “Jordan Peterson” tag.

I have watched hundreds of hours of his videos, most of them recordings of his psychology lectures at the University of Toronto. These predate his notoriety by many years. Bona fides. Established.

I’ve watched many dozens of hours of interviews, both friendly and hostile.

I shook his hand during a 30 second encounter after he spoke in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I thanked him for his intellectual courage.

My judgment, then, is based on more than average exposure to his ideas:

[T]he more of him you see the more you will be convinced he is intelligent, articulate, polymathic, grounded, kind, thoughtful and humbly aware of his own exhaustively examined faults. It’s not possible to spend a little time listening to him and come to any other intellectually honest conclusion.

I followed, with sadness and hope, his wife’s lingering, very close brush with death. I am well aware of his resulting, life-threatening dependency struggles with (prescribed) benzodiazepine, and his simultaneous bout with the CCP virus.

These concurrent catastrophes would have been the undoing of a lesser man, especially if he did not have determined assistance. His daughter provided that assistance.

I know her severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis cannot be gratuitously dismissed, as it was by a Prog-porn scribbler we’ll get to in a moment, as “according to her blog.” Easily available documentation refutes the imprecation. Including what Peterson wrote about it in his multi-million copy best seller.

Mikhaila Peterson’s dogged search for a cure for her own ailment made her eminently qualified to assist her father. As it turned out, quite obviously more qualified than most physicians in North America.

All this pain is used in an extended, snide, mendacious, drive-by kneecapping of Peterson and his daughter in a recent article written in the UK.

It occurs to me that the volume of historical video from both Peterson and his daughter is at least partially protective. Lesser beings would be de-platformed, cancelled… ruined. Instead, the millions who have seen their videos can easily identify the lies.

More people know the truth than have ever heard of the author of this latest dishonorable screed. I will not supply a link to it. I’ll mention neither the name of the author nor of the editor. That information is available in the links below, but the perps do not deserve any traffic from me.

Crucifying Jordan Peterson provides a comprehensive look at the UK article. It includes this quote:

“If anyone were in any doubt why people nowadays go to longform podcasts for intelligent reflection on contemporary issues rather than to the legacy media, where they know to expect only conventional platitudes, disinformation and lies, then a comparison of this article with the unedited audio interview now available on Mikhaila Peterson’s YouTube channel would be a good place to start.”

Why, you might ask, would Peterson agree to an interview knowing from experience the Maim Scream Media™ wants his head on a pike?

Peterson is asking that of himself.

The set up letter from the “commissioning editor” is included in Peterson’s self-examination, and is useful in understanding the true depth and stench of the pit in which these “journalists” marinate in their own excretions. Peterson was savvy enough to record the entire interview on which the article is purportedly based. We can hope, under the defamation law of the UK, that some legal action may thus be possible.

This vicious, deceitful, personal abuse speaks to the perpetrators’ arrogant ignorance; as Kate notes at Small Dead Anmials: Dear S_____ T____;

The question ending that letter to the editor is likely to remain unanswered by the perps, but I’ll try – “Business as usual.”

A Pecksniff of journalists

On the home page, when TOC was a Google blog, there was a slightly altered quotation from Humbert Wolfe’s 1930 book of poems, The Uncelestial City. Due to limitations in my WordPress theme, (at least with my OS, browser and add-ons) that now appears on the Blogroll and Contact pages.

It occurs to me that few people who visit TOC since the WordPress conversion ever click over to those pages, so I offer Wolfe’s little poem here as presently relevant:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
thank God! The Main Stream journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.
– After Humbert Wolfe (1886 – 1940)

In case you’re wondering, the alteration I made was from “British journalist” to “Main Stream Journalist.”

ABE books has 32 copies starting at $17.50 should you be interested. Since Amazon’s jettison of Parler, do not buy it there.

For “pecksniff” see here.

Frontrunning Winston Smith

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, Winston Smith (AKA “6079 Smith W”) was an editor in the Ministry of Truth Records Department. This employment required him to rewrite historical documents as necessary to validate Big Brother’s propaganda.

I don’t know how many people had the same job as #6079 in the novel, but our reality has a pecksniff* of “journalists” beavering away at altering the past and implementing Newspeak

[T]he Party has an ingenious plan to break the link with the real past by introducing a language barrier. When “all real knowledge of Oldspeak [disappears] . . . the whole literature of the past will have been destroyed” (56). After a few generations, when people are no longer capable of decoding information from the past, there will no longer even be a need to censor the history that has the potential for breeding unorthodox ideas — it will be completely out of the public’s reach.

That’s why we’re told there is no such thing as biological sex, for example. And why there has been an attempt to redefine “packing the court”.

In the universe our Maim Scream Media™ imagine, Hunter Biden is a paragon of virtue, and Joe Biden never bragged about coercing the Ukraine to fire a prosector investigating Burisma, Hunter’s employer. In that universe the New York Post does not exist, so a Tweet about a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden would not require a suspension. Twitter and Facebook would not have to suppress any reference to either story, sparing the Maim Scream Media™ the trouble.

As to revisionism, when the Leftist rag Salon published a story alleging Tom Cotton was not an Army Ranger last week, Newsweek scuttled into their archives:
Newsweek Edits 2015 Story on Army Rangers to Conform to New Attack on Tom Cotton

Prior to that, Winston Smith was sighted at the Washington Post, rewriting a 2019 story:
The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris’ Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water

Meanwhile, as noted yesterday, “journalists” are proclaiming themselves sacred guardians of the 1st Amendment as cover to justify censorship and deplatforming. Because, you know, only “real journalists” can be trusted to convey right think.

Winston Smith was at least uncomfortable about his job. In fact, he was tortured for his temerity.

The Columbia School of Journalism has not called for that. Yet. It’ll have to start with fines.

In this phantasmal universe, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the DNC never financed a report, written by a corrupt foreign agent, leading to a multi-million dollar investigation that turned up nothing. Nor were many of her ideological foes subjected to illegal surveillance and FISA warrants obtained by trusted Federal agencies via obvious lies to a court.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton never had a private email server violating basic security protocols and ignoring Federal records requirements.

Democrats and their scribblers are not the first to inhabit such a universe. Ask Nikolai Yezhov… well you can’t, because he was disappeared.

Now you see him – now you don’t.
Yezhov oversaw Stalin’s purges as head of the NKVD from 1936 to 1938, when Stalin had him secretly arrested and tried, then executed. He’s the short guy (his nickname was “The Dwarf”) who is blocking a view of the water in the shot on the left.

*Pecksniff is my appropriation (from Dickens’ Martin Chuzzlewit character) for a group of journalists. Like a nest of vipers, a cackle of hyenas, or a wake of vultures.

An unctuous hypocrite, a person who affects benevolence or pretends to have high moral principles; (also) a person who interferes officiously in the business of others. Frequently attributive. Also (occasionally) as adjective.