Well, I’ve about had it. I just spent 45 minutes that I will want back on my deathbed trying to find an actual link to the Buffalo shooter’s “alleged manifesto.” Maybe you can find it, and good for you, but it should not be that difficult, and I am sick of this crap. These sources are counting on most readers simply relying on their interpretations, and their interpretations cannot and must not be trusted. The word from Protect Democrats Media Central went out that there was an opportunity to politicize the shooting, which left 10 dead, by blaming it on Fox News and Tucker Carlson. In one particularly odious headline in Rolling Stone, this reasoning was used to impugn all Republicans: “The Buffalo Shooter Isn’t a ‘Lone Wolf.’ He’s a Mainstream Republican.” Nice. Yet I couldn’t find any such smear piece that allowed readers to read what was driving this theory.
Over at the reliably conservative PJ Media, Matt Margolis provided his debunking of the Fox/Tucker narrative, writing in part,
A search of the entire manifesto also yields no mentions of Tucker Carlson and specifically mentions “the internet” as where he got his beliefs…the shooter describes himself as “authoritarian left-wing,” but the left [is] trying to blame ‘right-wing extremism’…Later in the manifest, the shooter insists, “I would prefer to call myself a populist. But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.” He also repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, “conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”
But Margolis doesn’t link to a copy of the document either! Why should I trust him? Why should I, or anyone, trust any of these biased, manipulative messengers? Let me see this “alleged” manifesto, and I’ll decide who to blame. Believe me, I’ll be happy to point the finger at Tucker Carlson or Fox News if the text supports that. Now over at Liberty Unyielding, a right-wing site, the case is made that “The Great Replacement” is really a Left-inspired concept, and implies that this makes the other side of the ideological divide blameworthy for the 18-year-old’s rampage. But that site only links to a single page of the 180 page document!
I’m sick of our rotten, unprofessional, arrogant, unethical communications and information networks and agents. They are all untrustworthy. I detest every one of them.
1. Word Games. Right now, the party using Orwellian techniques is overwhelmingly the Democrats . T’was not always thus. My introduction to the cynical use of euphemisms to confuse the public was during the Nixon years. Lying was “stonewalling.” The Watergate burglary was a “covert operation.” Later, during the Bush II years, I learned that “enhanced interrogation” meant torture. But Democrats championed the most deceitful and destrucive euphemism of them all: “choice,” which neatly disguised the reality of what the choice was and did. For more than a decade, Democrats have increasingly employed deceptive language to slip unethical conduct and positions by the public. Illegal immigrants are labeled “undocumented,” “migrants,” or just “immigrants.” Riots are called “mostly peaceful protests,” and when conservatives are rioting, it is called an “insurrection.” Secure voting regulations are referred to as “voter suppression” measures. Censorship is “fighting misinformation.” I’m sure you can fill up your own list.
Now, as the mid-terms loom and Democrats, having made a mess of just about everything imaginable in record time, are, true to form, looking to cover-words and an euphemisms as metaphorical life-preservers. Here’s the House Pro-Choice Caucus’s new language directives, for example:
I guess they figured out that the jig was up on “choice.”
2. As if on cue! Right after I entered today’s ethics quiz challenge for discussion, esteemed commenter Adimagejim was moved by the Margaret Atwood post to reveal that she had been hired by his company as an “educator” to teach “women to deconstruct the patriarchy and its evil twin capitalism.” These bits of instruction are also being offered by the management…
If forced into such an indoctrination camp, I would openly dispute much of this. It becomes the obligation of those who object to enforced ideological conformity to do likewise. People better learn that quickly, and fulfill their duty to confront.
3. Back to the horrible, untrustworthy news media…Well, at least we know where the mainstream media stands. Margaret Sullivan, the last and most blatantly unethical of the New York Times’ “objective” ombudspersons before the hypocrisy got too think even for the times and it eliminated the position, is now with the Washington Post. True to her belief that journalists shouldn’t be objective, she has a column today titled “Democracy is at stake in the midterms. The media must convey that.” You know what that means: save democracy by voting for the party that has kept a bunch of pathetic conservative clowns locked up so they can be sentenced in show trials as the media calls them “insurrectionists” knowing that they aren’t.
Save it for voting for the party that set out to cancel the election of the last Republican President, contriving a false accusation of collusion, using the intelligence community as a tools, and pursuing two unjustified partisan impeachments.
Save democracy by voting for the party that imposed unconstitutional restrictions on travel and public gatherings except when a Marxist, racist organization felt that protests were a good strategy; save democracy by voting for the party that advocated intimidation of Trump officials, and just supported harassing Supreme Court justices at their homes.
Save democracy by empowering the party that wants to pack the Supreme Court, gut the Second Amendment, limit the First, and refuse to enforce our immigration laws.
Save democracy by endorsing a political party that uses the media as its propaganda organ, and that empowers and encourages corporations to take actions against dissent that the government cannot.
You know what’s scariest about that list? It’s not nearly complete, and I could write it off the top of my head.
The rationalization for this near exact mirror image of reality is, of course, Donald Trump’s words impugning the legitimacy of the 2020 election, much as Hillary Clinton denied the legitimacy of Trump’s election, with the news media’s approval, of course. How will the Post et al. march to Sullivan’s tune? I assume with columns like this one by the revolting Dana Millbank, comparing the looming reversal of Roe to 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown.
The Democrats have decided that their slim reed of holding power depends on promoting fear, panic and fury, and they are already falsely shouting “Fire!” in a metaphoric crowded theater.
All to save democracy, of course.