Category Archives: the press

Refresher on Obergefell v. Hodges

Something I saw today on Twitter prompted me to take a look back at an article I posted here a couple years ago, about how Obergefell v. Hodges was not in fact an affirmation of the will of the American People, as was repeatedly trumpeted by the fakenews at the time, but was in fact forcibly imposed by judicial fiat just about everywhere. I had posted a link to Wikipedia as a source at the time. The page at that link has since been obfuscated beyond recognition, to the point where it’s no longer a valid source for this information (nice retconning there, Wikipedians!), but, luckily, I found another one! Even on that one, though, you need to carefully look through the table and tally off the ones that list “legislative statute” or similar reason as the method of legalization. Counting full states only, there are 11. Including Washington D.C. gets you to 12. I maintain that states where same-sex marriage was legalized only after being imposed by a court do not count, and, frankly, it should be obvious that they do not. When the law is already a foregone conclusion anyway, how many people are going to bother voting against it? Liberal proponents, on the other hand, are well known for their penchant for gloating, which is precisely what such a “vote” constitutes.

In any case, here are the states who voluntarily legalized same-sex marriage, through legislative action, referendum, or the like:

Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

In all other states, including California, legalization was jammed down the throats of the people by either federal or state court fiat. Thus, any claim that this decision was somehow the “will of the people” is a flat-out lie, and if you hear it, you are being lied to. It’s called gaslighting, and this is an absolutely massive case of it.

Super Tuesday

Big day in the Republican presidential primary races!  Will Trump pull ahead to a decisive lead today?  Will the absolutely insane anti-Trump media blitz of the past few days have an impact, perhaps enough to lose him a state or two? Or will swing voters recognize it as exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to fling a truckload of shit in the hope that just a little bit of it will stick?

Perhaps the stickiest shit flung is in relation to the David Duke “endorsement.” Laughably, the whole thing turned out to be false, unless you want to really indulge in some hairsplitting: Duke himself stated clearly that he does not endorse Donald Trump, although he does plan on voting for him. That is an interesting distinction, because it’s possible the only reason Duke is making it is that he knows full well an outright endorsement would possibly damage Trump’s reputation. However, he could also be making it simply because a candidate with positions so congruent to his own as to actually merit his endorsement is not to be found in this race. That would make Trump, in his eyes, the most pragmatic choice of half a dozen less-than-adequate candidates. It is certainly not unusual for people to vote that way.  Myself, for instance: I voted for Romney in 2012, but would not consider that an endorsement.  I voted for him because I didn’t want Obama to win, that’s all.  I did, however, gladly support Ron Paul in the 2012 primary, and I’d agree that really does constitute an endorsement. See the difference?  In particular, when you compare Trump’s position on illegal immigrants to that of the other GOP candidates, do you see the difference? Which position do you think Duke agrees with?

Beyond that, though, you have the simple fact that Duke’s alleged endorsement is irrelevant anyway. I will illustrate: Let’s say some weirdo genius is able to resurrect Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Gengis Khan from the dead and they all endorse Trump, enthusiastically and unequivocally.  Hitler yells, “Jawohl! Herr Trump ist der best hope for betterment of the master race and containment of das internazional Jew menace! All hail Deutschland!” Stalin proclaims Trump the exalted savior of World Communism, champion of the working class and the reincarnation of Karl Marx; and Khan insists that he and Trump could have a grand old time invading, conquering and pillaging diverse lands while relishing the lamentations of the enemy women.  What the hell difference would any of this make, exactly?  Would Trump’s position somehow be changed because of these endorsements? Would he be different somehow?

The answer is simply, no, Trump’s position would not change, Trump would still be Trump, and it doesn’t matter if a candidate is endorsed by an extremist whose views he doesn’t share.  It is in fact irrelevant, unless you happen to be of similar mindset to a six year old: “That other kid that I hate says he likes you, so I am going to beat you up, scum!!”  It’s completely ridiculous, and I say that as someone who, as a kid, was actually subjected to that type of asinine behavior (on one occasion).  It is certainly unworthy of people who purport to be serious political commentators, politicians or journalists.  The expectation of disavowal is clearly a shibboleth, and a lame attempt to push Trump down the slippery slope of liberal virtue signalling.

I have little doubt that typical Trump supporters understand all of this, at least at a gut level.  Whether or not swing voters get it is something less certain, but we’ll see.  One advantage that Trump has at this point in the race is that his primary opponents have pretty successfully managed to tar and feather themselves. Everybody knows Cruz is dishonest and Rubio is out of his depth, even their supporters (who nonetheless don’t want to admit it to themselves).

It’s going to be an interesting night.

To report or not to report, that is the question

On December 3, I noticed on the front page of the local newspaper that there was no mention whatsoever of the San Bernadino terrorist shooting that had occurred the previous day.  I remarked upon it at the time to a couple of co-workers, who speculated that the shooting occurred after press time. That didn’t seem quite right to me, but since I didn’t have a better explanation, I let it slide. (I didn’t bother looking through the rest of the paper to see if it had been mentioned at all. Looking back, I now realize that was a mistake.)

More recently, there was an incident here where someone was non-fatally shot by police officers. It happened around 3:30 p.m.  It was the headline article on the front page of the newspaper the very next morning.  There wasn’t a lot of detail in the article, but at least it was up there in top view, right where it ought to be: Shootings are mercifully rare around here, and shootings by police officers are even more unusual.

So, I got curious and looked up the time of the San Bernadino incident.  According to Wikipedia, it happened at 10:59 a.m., local time, which would be 12:59 p.m. in this time zone. Thus, the suggestion that it happened after press time is clearly incorrect. Why, I wonder, was it completely omitted from the front page?

The local paper here is owned by one of the major players in the newspaper business. I, and others, have noticed that the major players in mainstream news today seem to have some, shall we say, particular tendencies when it comes to reporting violent crimes. Obviously this is the first thing that comes to mind when I wonder about the mysterious absence of the San Bernadino shooting on the front page.

Why I am not a liberal

I’ve been toying lately with the possibility of adding another category to my category list, named “why I’m not a liberal,” and then focusing on that for a while, with links to and discussion of all the various species of lunacy and hypocrisy that liberals are expected to believe in this day and age. The problem is, even if I limited myself just to current events, there’s so much out there that I could probably spend all day, every day blogging about that. It’s a veritable avalanche of stupidity, and I actually have to work for a living, you know?

So, for now, I’ll just throw out this link to Ann Coulter’s recent, wonderful rant: San Bernardino Shooters Unknown: Here Are Some Past Mass Shooters, wherein she takes aim at the New York Times’ patently ridiculous assertion that American mass shootings are perpetrated by “mostly white men.” Go Ann, go!

Sincerely,
A White Man

More on that…

All sarcasm aside, I wanted to focus on one additional aspect of the article I linked in the previous post. I’ll interject a comment or two:

Migrants and locals got into a fight [note the passive voice here, as if someone didn’t actually start the fight, it just occurred as if by magic] in a restaurant in Bavaria on Sunday, resulting in a 50-year-old German man receiving serious head injuries.

The brawl, which began as an argument between a small group of migrants and local residents eating at a restaurant in the town of Velden, started [passive voice again] in the early hours of Sunday morning, according to Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The situation appeared to calm down when the migrants left, but they soon returned with reinforcements. [emphasis added]

So, ok. Brawls “begin” from time to time, and fights “break out.” Maybe not very often in Germany among Germans, but I’m sure the occurrence is slightly greater than zero. What happened here, though, is another animal altogether. The migrants appeared to leave, but then came back with reinforcements and resumed the fight. In other words, they intentionally escalated the conflict, taking it from the realm of flaring tempers right into premeditated vengeance.

Do Germans ever behave that way? (Well, not in recent history, for sure.) I can’t be the only person to notice this. Of course, people whose jobs or ideologies depend on not noticing will certainly not notice, probably not even if they themselves are on the receiving end of such an attack.

Pro-feminist bias in independent film

This is interesting. Via Heartiste:

[…] Filmmaker Started to Doubt Her Feminist Beliefs… Now Her Movie Is at Risk

The movie is titled “The Red Pill” and is about the men’s rights movement. As filmmaker Cassie Jaye worked on the project, she found her views on the issue starting to change and, when funders discovered she was not doing a film with a straight-up pro-feminist angle, funding dried up. The entire project was in danger.

The most interesting part of this can be summed up by the following excerpts:

Jaye is concerned about funding the film with angel investors, who she says often want creative control: “We weren’t finding executive producers who wanted to take a balanced approach, we found people who wanted to make a feminist film.”

The second option was funding via grants. Jaye says, “I started to see the bias towards women’s films and against men’s. There are no categories for men’s films though there are several for women and minorities. I submitted the film to human rights categories, and was rejected by all of them.”

According to Jaye, her sincerely-held opinions on the men’s rights movement have made her movie almost unfundable and support has dried up: “Films that support one side and act as propaganda do better than those that try to have an honest look. I won’t be getting support from feminists. They want a hit piece and I won’t do that. ”

Not only that, feminists are unwilling to be involved with the project at all, including not wanting to be interviewed or to work for the production:

“I started to invite feminists to be interviewed for the film, making up about 25 per cent of the interviews scheduled,” she explains. “We had a popular feminist author who was scheduled to be in the film. After we drove down to Los Angeles, she cancelled the night before claiming she felt ‘unsafe.’”

That reminds me of what Christina Hoff Sommers ran into again and again when she was writing her book “Who Stole Feminism” back in the 1990’s. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, to see that so little has changed.

The white knights, of course, did their part:

Jaye also had a paid animator drop out of the project because he didn’t want to be part of a project that sympathised with the men’s rights movement.

And, as if that isn’t enough:

“I’ve also had interns, including a gender studies major. One girl in particular had a lot of crying attacks and emotional experiences. She claimed everything I was showing her was triggering her.”

(The intern should simply be fired and not receive any credit for the internship. Although, admittedly, there’s a risk that such an action might generate even more resistance. Due to, you know. Microaggressions or some stupid thing.)

What struck me about this is how well it illustrates the rampant left-wing bias in the film industry. Any red pill person who watches television nowadays can see it pretty clearly in the shows themselves. This story illustrates the problem pretty well from a behind-the-scenes standpoint: There appears to be literally no one involved in that business who has any interest in taking a fair, objective look at a feminist issue, while there is certainly a surplus of people who are more than happy to do what they can to undermine it. I expect Jaye will run into difficulty when the film is completed and she tries to get it distributed.

She has embarked on a Kickstarter campaign to raise the remaining funds that are needed to get the film completed. She’s accepting funds through November 11. Assuming anyone actually reads this blog (haha), here’s the link to the campaign. I note with some satisfaction that the goal amount has already been substantially exceeded. That is good news. I’ll be interested to see if I can track down and watch the film once it’s released.

Bow down to the plutocrats

The Swedish news media is apparently doing an ostrich-style head-in-the-sand routine with respect to the Swedish Pirate Party, the story of which set off a whole train of thought in my mind today.  The story, as reported on Falkvinge:

One Month Before Elections, Swedish Oldmedia’s Pretend-Does-Not-Exist Attitude Toward Pirate Party Reaching Ridiculous Levels

It’s a familiar story:

“for some reason, the fifth-largest party out of Sweden’s eight – the Pirate Party – is consistently omitted from listings, events, debates, and coverage ahead of European Elections. For a challenger, this would be acceptable, but not for a defender of title”

It’s the same trick that the American media pulled with Ron Paul when he ran for President last time, except in this case it’s an incumbent party getting the treatment, and much more blatantly than in the case of Ron Paul.  Paul at least got an occasional, condescending mention, as well as a nice, well-applauded guest appearance on Jay Leno.  The Swedish Pirate Party appears to be on 100% ignore status.

I realize I’m being foolish when I say this, but isn’t the media supposed to be neutral and unbiased? Especially about elections? :)

LOL, yeah.  In fact, in the case of the Swedish Pirate Party, one can easily understand the obvious bias, since “the media” includes corporate entities who are among the most steadfast opponents of the Pirate Party platform.  Without current intellectual property laws, which the Pirate Party opposes, they’d be out of business (or so they say).

What the American media’s beef was with Ron Paul is a bit harder to figure, but much more interesting to speculate about, especially the question of why.  I mean, yes, on one level you can say that they didn’t like what he was saying about the gold standard, or whatever.  But why?  Why do TV stations and so forth even care about that?

To mention another example, it’s hard to avoid noticing the way that the media so slavishly parrots the official line on American foreign policy, even when it flies directly in the face of their normal leftist agenda.  The Ukraine, for instance, is currently under the leadership of an American-installed, full-fledged Nazi organization, put there by the machinations of the State Department and their well-financed shills, in spite of the fact that the previous government was legitimately elected.  Liberal media types are supposed to care about this kind of stuff. So why do they so faithfully and consistently lie about it?

It appears that we (i.e. “the people”) are not the people who the media really gives a shit about, other than as potential fodder for the leftist hive mind (which itself is merely a tool, not an end in itself).

Some of this makes sense given the media business model.  A newspaper is not a product, a newspaper is bait.  You are the product, advertisers are the customer, and newspapers won’t bite the hand that feeds.  But what do advertisers care about what’s going on halfway around the planet or what Ron Paul says about fiat currency?  Yes, advertisers have some preferences as to what sort of marks (i.e. suckers) they are looking for.  They would rather you be dumb and suggestible than smart and skeptical, so media sources gravitate towards dumb, suggestive content.  But that still doesn’t explain things like ignoring Ron Paul and lying about the Ukraine.

I concluded a while ago that the ultimate masters of the media are somehow the big banks, oil companies (and other resource-extraction companies), big agribusiness firms, big pharma, generalized big money interests, etc. etc.  And I don’t mean the corporate entities themselves, but the people who ultimately control those entities through their ownership of them.  In other words, the people who we could loosely call “the plutocracy.”  These people aren’t just the masters of the media, either.  They are the masters of everything that matters.  If something happens on this planet independently of their will, it’s only because they recognize that micromanagement is not an effective way to run things.

What I still wonder about, the question that bubbles up into my conscious mind when I read about the Swedish media’s desperate attempt to uncreate the Pirate Party through sheer force of looking the other way, is the actual structure of it.  How does it all fit together? For instance, if something is going down somewhere in the world and it’s clearly something that We the Plebes can’t be allowed to know about, how is it decided what the official story is going to be, and how are the media outlets instructed on its promulgation? It’s a web of money and ownership, clearly, but it bugs me that I don’t know the structure.

Of course, from the plutocrat perspective, that is the beauty of it: Ordinary people like myself aren’t allowed to know who is really in charge, how they got there, how they stay in charge, and so on.  The old system, where everything was managed by a visible aristocracy, suffered from the problem that it was too easy for the Volk to rise up and kill the aristocrats.  Nowadays, that sort of thing appears to be no longer possible.  If things get really rough (due to, say, plutocrats clear-cutting the world economy), we are basically screwed.  We won’t even be able to eat because the food trucks won’t have any gas and almost all of our food is produced hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Has humanity ever been so completely enslaved?  I don’t think it has, not by a long shot.